A Study of Democratic Purposes and Processes in School Leadership Teams

1. A Study of Democratic Purposes and Processes in School Leadership Teams Lynn DoyleOld Dominion University Carl E. HanssenHanssen Consulting DeAnn HuinkerUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

2. Abstract The literature in educational leadership widely supports democratic leadership. Through observations and interviews, this qualitative study explored how school leadership teams implement both democratic processes and purposes. Findings suggest ways that school principals and leadership teams can increase shared decision making and focus on equity issues. Purpose of this study: to explore ways in which school principals and leadership team members understand and implement the intertwined processes and purposes of democratic leadership.

3. Background • The literature in educational leadership stresses decision making as a shared process. • Theories and models for organizing schools now include shared decision making in some way. • Participatory decision-making dramatically alters the leadership of schools. • Critical elements of schools as democratic communities • Vision—to teach students how to contribute to a democratic society, and • Democratic use of power within the school (In other words, to teach democratic principles, schools must also use them, i.e., shared decision making.)

4. Theoretical Framework Shared decision making as democratic process cannot be separated from the intent (purpose) of decisions. If purpose is omitted, then certain groups could vote for the inequitable treatment of other groups—and all in the name of democracy (Quantz, Cambron-McCabe, & Dantley, 1991). Decisions must be more than shared; they must be committed to issues of social equity (O’Hair, McLaughlin & Reitzug, 2000).

5. Methods • Qualitative study using text narratives from observations of team meetings and interviews with team members of teams; extensive field notes transcribed immediately following observations and interviews • Open-ended interview protocol questions focused on team functioning and power • Analysis of the text data was through thematic unitizing (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Ryan & Bernard, 2000)—categories emerged throughout analysis and interpretation of the data (Constas, 1992).

6. Data Sources • 22 team meetings in 11 schools in a large, diverse urban school district • Interviews with at least one team member prior to or immediately following LT observations • Leadership teams (LT) mandated by central administration. LT focus—improving teaching and learning. Membership varied and included principals, key administrators, the literacy coaches, Math Teacher Leaders (MTL), and classroom teachers representing each grade level. • Teams conduct meetings—typically immediately after school weekly or biweekly. Team members were not paid.

7. Results/Discussion • While district-wide organizational design of LTs was conducive to democratic leadership, it did not always function that way. Levels of functioning emerged according to five categories. • 1. Knowledge Bases • Overall, LT members had good understanding of the needs of their schools and the kind of teaching that leads to improved instructional outcomes. However, what many, including principals, did not appear to know or understand were ways to implement democratic process and purpose.

8. Results/Discussion (cont.) 2. Varied Use of Power Teams were centrally mandated; however, principals decided level of their own participation. • In six of the schools, principals were “in charge.” They ran the meetings, made most decisions and/or called for a vote. • In three schools, teachers ran the meetings, and the principals acted as “nearly equal participant.” Principals’ participation was more as informant. • In two schools, the principals acted as “advisor on call.” They did not attend LT meetings but stopped in, checked needs, and after providing needed resources, left the teachers to make decisions.

9. Results/Discussion (cont.) 3. Structure of Meetings Varied • Formal voting to consensus • Rigid to semi-structured chats/rap sessions • Off task with uncompleted agendas to efficient • Decisions—Broad topics to focused on instruction • Time spent—are/are not related to importance of issue Meetings of principals as advisors on call Structure often loose and chaotic, but well focused In one case, the field notes indicated, “The structure for leadership was loose, and it was sometimes difficult to ascertain who was leading the meeting. Everyone talked out of turn. However, of all meetings observed, these teachers were most collaborative, focused, hard working, and productive.…made considerable progress on creating a school improvement plan in the same amount of time that several of the other teams took to simply decide on a schedule for when to work on their plans.”

10. Results/Discussion (cont.) 4. Parameters for Decision making • Topics before the teams were often broad and in some cases, more appropriate for School Governance Councils. “We do everything in this school, from soup to nuts.” • In schools with principals as advisor on call, the focus was narrow. Consistent with district policy, LTs were to focus specifically on teaching issues. 5. Factors of Control Each school LT had a different tenor/climate that appeared associated with the role, approach, and style of the principal. Meetings in which principals were “in charge” were most formal and controlled but surprisingly, not necessarily productive.

11. Missing Element: Democratic Purpose In a study of administrative beliefs, Doyle (2002) found that administrators did not understand democratic leadership as a complex interweaving of process and product. Results of this study reveal that while the district imposed organizational structures (process) that had the potential for democracy, administrators did not implement these organizational mandates in a way that exemplified democratic leadership. Examples of shared decision making were limited and throughout all of the observations, there were only a few examples in which LT members talked specifically about equity issues (purpose). They did not describe curricula centered on social action nor mention challenges to the status quo. This void makes one question if or how LT members, and in particular, principals and teachers have been exposed to theories of democratic leadership.