Abstract
This article explores the use of protocol-structured dialogue in promoting reflective practices and shared theories of action within a district leadership team. Protocols have been used to make individuals’ theories of action visible and subject to evaluation. This is important for leaders trying to establish coherence across a system; in order to establish coherence, individuals on leadership teams need to be able to surface, test, and sharpen and align their internal pictures of how change works. The author draws on qualitative data from a year-long study of one team as it prepared to implement a capacity-building initiative that would promote collaboration and reflection in schools across the district. Findings illustrate how, as administrators experimented with reflective practice using protocols, divergent theories of leadership’s role in setting a clear direction for school-based reflection emerged, with principals looking for district-wide goals to drive school-based reflection and the superintendent looking to leave decisions about goals to individual school leaders. Our findings suggest that the team’s capacity for aligning these theories was limited because protocol-structured dialogue was carried out as a generic problem-solving exercise. As such, it did not promote visible, productive reasoning in the system’s formal leader, the district superintendent. Moreover, protocol-structured discussion did not mediate the problematic effects of formal authority distinctions or longstanding relationships within the administrative leadership team.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The author worked in a traditional researcher role as observer of the processes that unfolded over the course of the year. The institute’s facilitator was not a participant in the study.
Writers Workshop is a widely used interdisciplinary writing technique which can build students' fluency in writing through continuous, repeated exposure to the process of writing. See http://www.teachersfirst.com/index.cfm for more explanation.
Communicated in a personal correspondence.
Bonham is a pseudonym for the school district.
References
Agullard, K., Huebner, T. A., Goughnour, D., & Calisi-Corbett, G. (2005). The impact of three different approaches to districtwide continuous improvement. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the literature. Toronto, ON: International Centre for Educational Change, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Argyris, C. (1990). Inappropriate defenses against the monitoring of organization development practice. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 26(3), 299–312.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Reflections, 4(2), 4–15.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, W. J., Finn, C. E., & Cribb, J. T. E. (1999). The educated child: A parents’ guide from preschool through eighth grade. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Cardno, C. (2007). Leadership learning—The praxis of dilemma management. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(2), 33–49.
Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. (2008). Aligning mental models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 730–750.
Chrispeels, J. H., & Martin, K. J. (2002). Four school leadership teams define their roles within organizational and political structures to improve student learning. School effectiveness and school improvement, 13(3), 327–365.
Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Dana, N. F. (Ed.). (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action researcher. SAGE Publications.
Davies, B. (2006). Leading the strategically focused school: Success and sustainability. London: Paul Chapman.
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. London: Sage Press.
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.
Fullan, M. (2005). Professional learning communities writ large. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & E. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Los Angeles, CA: National Educational Service.
Giles, C. (2007). Building capacity in challenging US schools: An exploration of successful school leadership practice in relation to organizational learning. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 30–38.
Gillispie, J., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2008). Us and them: Conflict, collaboration, and the discursive negotiation of multishareholder roles in school district reform. Small Group Research, 39(4), 397–437.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Distinction and disgust: The emotional politics of school failure. International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory and Practice, 7, 27–43.
Harris, A., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2006). Improving schools and educational systems: An international perspective. London: Routledge.
Hentschke, G., Nayfack, M., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Exploring superintendent leadership in smaller urban districts: Does district size influence superintendent behavior? Education and Urban Society, 4(3), 317–337.
Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. A., & Newton, M. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for Study of Teaching and Policy.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new super intendency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, P., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2010). Linking central office and its schools for reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738–775.
Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. E., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., & Reihl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.
Massell, D., & Goertz, M. E. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
McDonald, J. P. (2007). The power of protocols: an educator’s guide to better practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved schools keep getting better. Report prepared for McKenzie & Company.
Rothman, R. (2009). Improving student learning requires district learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 44–50.
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67–100.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Supovitz, J. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Talbert, J. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), International handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tsoukas, G. (1990). Vulnerability, moral responsibility, and reflexive thinking. Reflections, 4(2), 14–15.
Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2005). District leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Working Paper: MCREL.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Szczesiul, S.A. The [un]spoken challenges of administrator collaboration: An exploration of one district leadership team’s use of protocols to promote reflection and shared theories of action. J Educ Change 15, 411–442 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9218-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9218-5