Thinking About Schools

New Theories and Innovative Practice

Aimee Howley, Craig Howley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781136500596
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

As its title implies, this book has a deceptively simple mission: to prepare would-be school leaders to draw upon a variety of theoretical perspectives when thinking about schools and schooling. It shows how theories can function as cognitive tools to be mastered, carefully stored in one's intellectual toolbox and used to interpret and resolve real world problems. Beneath this goal lies the belief that the most effective leaders are those who are able to construct their own well-grounded interpretations of events and their own responses to those events. Key features of this exciting new text include the following.

Focus on Alternative Theories - The functionalist theoretical views that have dominated administrator preparation programs for the last half-century are reviewed early in the book and are shown to be inadequate to the task of understanding and coping with the complex realities of modern day schooling. The remainder of the book presents alternative views of schooling that, taken together, can be thought of as a theoretical repertoire from which to construct interpretations and solutions to everyday, real-world problems.
Focus on Diversity - Diversity is examined from a variety of viewpoints. Chapter 6 looks at the cultural bases of leadership, Chapter 7 at comparative and international contexts, and Chapter 8 at gender and sexual orientation.
Illustrative Cases - Each chapter contains a case with an embedded dilemma similar to those that real-world administrators confront. While illustrating the particular theoretical view presented in the chapter, these cases are sufficiently complex that they lend themselves to interpretation by any of the other theories considered in the book.

This book is appropriate for graduate-level courses with titles such as Organizational Theory, Theory of School Leadership, or Introduction to Educational Administration. It might also be used as one of several texts in advanced courses on leadership theory.

1

Using Theory to Think About Schools

Among many contemporary educators, there seems to have developed a misguided belief about the antagonism between theory and practice. We sometimes hear our students—practicing principals and superintendents—say, “what you’re teaching us here at the university is ok, but it’s just theory. It won’t work in the real world.”

This common response to theory baffles us, as well, because theory, as we view it, involves propositions about the way the world does or should work. It isn’t a prescription for what to do, but it’s useless to us if it doesn’t help us make sense of the real world and take effective action (in the real world) on behalf of what we value (see e.g., Mungazi, 1999).

But theory can help us do more than that. It can help us imagine alternatives by supporting useful visions of what the world might become. And it is critical that school leaders be able to do this. Equally important, theory, in its broadest sense, guides dialog about school practice, whether that dialog involves colleagues in the teachers’ lounge or representatives from the many groups with a stake in what schools do and how they are run.

Theories that Explain what’s Going on

Derived either from personal experience or from systematic study of some set of causes and effects, many theories strive to offer explanations of why things happen (see, e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1974). Unlike some explanations, however, theories attempt to provide general principles explaining why things typically happen. For example, contrast the following explanations:

• The teacher gave candy to the students because they were well behaved.

• The fourth-grade reading test scores improved because students had daily practice in phonics.

The first statement offers an explanation of a particular event. The statement may be perfectly true, but it does not help anyone understand how the world works. Unlike this arbitrary association of one event with another, the association between events in the second statement implies a systematic (and perhaps even a causal) relationship. If we are willing to limit our “world” to the fourth-grade classes referenced in the statement, we can formulate the second statement as a principle about how the world works: “Teaching phonics improves achievement in reading.” The second statement, then, may properly be classified as a theory.

In education, we use and develop many theories of this second type. In fact, almost every feature of school life—from the association between teaching and learning to the behavior of school boards—has been theorized in this way-Sidebar 1-1 presents a list of some of these theories. You will notice in several cases that different (and even conflicting) theories purport to explain the same outcome (e-g-, reading achievement or teacher motivation).

Sidebar 1-1: Theories About Why Certain Things Happen in Schools

Student Achievement

1. Achievement increases when students are taught via direct instructional methods.
2. Achievement increases when students see the meaningful ness of what they’re learning.
3. Students’ achievement is strongly associated with their socio-economic status.

Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

1. Teachers’ job satisfaction increases when they are given control over school-wide decisions.
2. Teachers’ job satisfaction increases when they feel they can control what goes on in their individual classrooms.
3. Teachers’ job satisfaction increases when they are treated like professionals.

School Effectiveness

1. School effectiveness improves when the professionals—teachers and administrators—are responsible for school governance.
2. School effectiveness improves when the entire community—educators, parents, and citizens—are responsible for school governance.
3. Effectiveness increases when schools are governed by strong instructional leaders.

Theoretical Systems

Often, propositions about how the world works are organized into coherent systems. In fact, when people use the word “theory” they often mean “theoretical system.” For example, we may talk about “critical theory” or about “compliance theory” Each of these so-called “theories” incorporates many propositions about how the world works, not just one. This perspective of theory is what Gutek (1988) was talking about when he wrote:

Theory refers to a grouping or clustering of general ideas or propositions that explain the operations of an institution, such as a school, or a situation, such as teaching or learning; moreover, these ideas and propositions are sufficiently abstract or general that they can be transferred and applied to situations other than those in which they are directly developed. (p. 250)

Not only do alternative theoretical systems offer different explanations of how the world works, but also, within some theoretical systems, different versions of the theory are put forth by different theorists. In dynamic systems theory, for instance, the claims made by Peter Senge differ from the claims made by Margaret Wheatley Both versions clearly belong to dynamic systems theory, but they also show marked differences-

Another use of the word “theory” denotes an entire branch of theoretical work. For example, when we talk about “leadership theory,” we are not speaking about one proposition about how the world works, nor are we speaking about one coherent set of propositions about how leadership works in the world. Instead, we are talking about a scholarly tradition devoted to explaining about leadership. Quite different, even contradictory, theoretical systems can be categorized under a heading such as “leadership theory.” In Sidebar 1-2, we list several theoretical systems that pertain in some way to school leadership. We categorize these theoretical systems on the basis of the scholarly traditions to which they belong; and, for each of the theoretical systems, we provide examples of theorists who share fundamental theoretical assumptions but who offer different versions of the theory.

Sidebar 1-2: Theoretical Traditions, Systems, and Versions of Systems

Tradition 1: Leadership Theory

System 1: Contingency Theories

Version 1: House’s path-goal theory

Version 2: Fiedler’s contingency theory

System 2: Transformational Leadership Theories

Version 1: Burn’s theory of transactional and transformational leaders

Version 2: Fullan’s theory of educational change agents

Traditional 2: Organizational Theory

System 1: Theories of Bureaucracy

Version 1: Weber’s theory of the ideal bureaucracy

Version 2: Barnard’s theory of the functions of the executive

System 2: Theories of Organizational Culture

Version 1: Schon’s theory of organizational culture

Version 2: Sergiovanni’s theory of the life-world and systems-world

Tradition 3: Learning Theory

System 1: Behaviorist Theories

Version 1: Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning

Version 2: Gagne’s theory of task analysis

System 2: Constructivist Theory

Version 1: Vygotsky’s theory of social constructionism

Version 2: Posner’s conceptual change theory

Theories of Action

One important category of explanatory theory encompasses “theories of action.” These theories—however derived—incorporate propositions about the means and ends (or causes and effects) of action (Argyris & Schon, 1974). For example, a school principal may act on the basis of the following theory of action: “If you want students to respect the rules, you must involve students in setting the rules.” Another principal might hold a rather different theory of action: “If you want students to respect the rules, you must apply the rules firmly and consistently.” These theories of action guide how each of the principals acts, and, to some extent, they may also condition the way students react-Moreover, the fact that people hold theories of action also enables us to understand why they do what they do. Indeed, the set of propositions related to theories of action themselves constitute a theory (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985). In other words, one theory about how people function in the world is that they develop theories and act on them. Accepting this theory means that we maintain the belief that, in order to understand a person’s or a group’s actions, it is necessary to understand the theories on which those actions are based.

For example, let’s say we want to understand why a particular set of dynamics—interactions and relationships among people—is at play in a particular school. One place to start would be to examine the theories of action held by those who are exercising power within the school. Take, for instance, a principal who believes that, if given the chance, students will misbehave. This principal is likely to set up school structures and procedures that influence students’ behavior in certain ways. Perhaps those structures and procedures will even predispose students to misbehave, contrary to the principal’s theory of action (McCadden, 1998).

Our understanding of the situation, however, needs to account for greater complexity than this simple hypothetical cause and effect relationship. We must remember, after all, that not only the principal but also the students, teachers, and parents are taking actions on the basis of the theories they hold. And all of these theory-based actions are interacting in very complex ways. To understand the dynamics of a disciplinary incident or the complexities of the establishment of a school’s discipline policy—or any other event, for that matter—we need first to understand how the various participants used action to produce effects on the external world (including other people). Then we need to analyze the moves and countermoves made by the participants as their different theory-based actions collided, merged, diverged, and conflicted. In such encounters, each participant’s actions are likely to shift from their original course, and, in the process, their theories of action may end up being altered.

Theories-In-Use. Explicitly stated theories of action (sometimes referred to as “espoused theories”) are not always the theories on which people base their actions. Whereas sometimes people’s theories-in-use are congruent with their espoused theories, often people act in ways that seem to contradict their explicitly stated theories of action (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Argyris et al., 1985). For example, we have all heard about the professor of pedagogy who lectures day after day about the importance of using active methods of teaching. The professor’s theory of action (i.e., that active methods of teaching are better than passive methods of teaching for promoting students’ learning) does not influence the professor’s own actions. Rather, the professor operates on the basis of a tacit “theory-in-use.”

According to Argyris and Schon (1974), “Theories-in-use are means for getting what we want. They specify strategies for resolving conflicts, making a living, closing a deal, organizing a neighborhood—indeed, for every kind of intended consequence” (p. 15). Professionals, such as school administrators, develop many theories-in-use in response to the conditions of their work. These theories, in fact, enable them to perform their jobs on a day-to-day basis. Without such theories, administrators would have to ponder every action they were going to take—an impossibility given the fast-paced nature of their jobs. Tacitly held theories, then, clearly enable school leaders to cope with the daily necessities of their work. At the same time, tacitly held theories can cause difficulties. In particular, because theories-in-use often embed unexamined assumptions, they can color our understanding of what’s happening and thereby restrict our potential to respond flexibly to new circumstances. Tacitly held theories determine (and, as a result, limit) how we see the world. And such limitations are often opaque to us because we rarely stop to examine our unexamined assumptions! All of us are subject to this difficulty, and a better appreciation of theory and theory-making can help.

Theories that Present Alternatives

Rather than describing how the world works, some theories present visions of how the world might work better. The visions put forward by these theories offer an ideal (or normative) view of the world or some part of it. Of course, different theorists view “the ideal” quite differently. And your views of “the ideal” might not match the views of any of the theorists.

The following example shows what we mean. Max Weber (1947) developed a theory of the “ideal bureaucracy” in which he outlined the way in which a bureaucracy might work under the best of circumstances. To Weber, bureaucracy was an innovation. It offered an objective basis for running organizations and a corrective to the arbitrary and capricious ways that 19th century and early 20th century industrialists often managed their corporations. To us today, though, bureaucracy may seem like a bad idea. When we think of bureaucracy, we usually think of huge and complicated organizations, of “red tape,” and of doing things “by the book.” The word “bureaucracy” does not conjure up images of fairness and job opportunity. Rather, the word suggests impersonal treatment and limitations of possibilities for employee growth. Why does this mismatch exist? Why do we see as dysfunctional what Weber imagined as an improvement?

Something like what our students complain about happened. Theories about what might, or should be are often subject to real-world testing. Bureaucracy was put to the test, but the field-testing of bureaucracy was not an intentional experiment. It just happened. As modern organizations became larger, and as managers sought ways to handle the size and complexity of these enterprises, they created rules and regulations, established hierarchies, and specialized tasks and roles, and only partly because Weber had described it all Indeed, models had already existed for most of these things (especially in 18th and 19th century government).

Our criticisms of bureaucracy, however, stem from our experiences with these actual bureaucracies. Most of us, after all, are unaware of Weber’s scholarship. We have a basis for faulting Weber in that his “ideal” version of bureaucracy did not take into account its possible dysfunctions.

Our criticisms, of course, do not address the question of whether or not bureaucracies turned out to be more fair or to offer more opportunities for advancement than the organizational arrangements that preceded them. Rather, we tend to base our criticisms on a different vision—our own personal vision—of the ideal organization. We express concerns about bureaucracies because they are not sufficiently democratic or not sufficiently attentive to the human side of organizational life. Bureaucracies, then, often fail to match up with our personal vision of “the ideal” organization. Note, however, that in order to do such a matching up, we must hold—perhaps without acknowledging so explicitly—particular theories about what constitute good (or effective) organizations. Furthermore, our views about good organizations tend to reflect our more general views about which goals and actions are “good” and which are not. Most of us, by the way, could not do a very good job of describing in detail our own vision of the ideal organization. That’s another reason to study theory: to help us describe in some detail what we think—both in the mode of description and in the mode of what might be.

The Connection Between Theories and Philosophies

Philosophies are coherent and comprehensive bodies of speculative thought about the nature of the world and human beings’ place within it (see, e.g., Gutek, 1988). Because they are speculative, however, philosophical systems cannot be shown to be “true” or “false” in the commonsense way that we use those terms (Perkinson, 1971). Different philosophies, instead, offer alternative perspectives on the world. Moreover, these perspectives guide the types of theories human beings derive about how the world ought to work. In particular, ethical philosophies offer visions of “the good” and principles for doing “what’s right.”

Our ideas about what goes into making an organization good, for example, derive from our philosophical views about “the good” in general. If we believe that caring is a fundamental good (e.g., Noddings, 1984), then we will judge organizations to be good insofar as they offer opportuniti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Using Theory to Think About Schools
• 2. Traditional Theories
• 3. Why We Need to Think Differently About Schools
• 4. Dynamic Systems Theory
• 5. Communitarianism
• 6. Cultural Bases of Leadership
• 7. Schools and Administration in Comparative Context
• 8. Gender, Sexuality, and School Leadership
• 9. Critical Theory and School Leadership
• 10. Postmodernist Theories and School Leadership
• 11. School Administration and Globalization
• 12. Thinking About Making Schools Better
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index