Leadership on the Frontlines: Changes in Preparation and Practice 5captured 4-22-08 from http://libertylyceum.org/quotes.shtml)..) Jennifer James similarly said,
“The keys to happiness are efficacy, openness to new learning and meaning beyond self.”
This is why we became educators—because we loved to learn and we wanted to impact
others, to make a difference. I know it is why I did, and I know I left my classroom to lead as
a principal because someone whose opinion mattered convinced me I could impact more kids
by becoming a building leader, an instructional leader of leaders of instruction. I left my
principalship and completed my path to the professoriate because again someone I trusted and
who I felt knew better than I convinced me that to train principals would be of greater impact
than to be one.
I am concerned that we are too complacent, too watchful, too patient. The year is 2008
and we are in fact at least seven years into the new millennium. Have we changed or do we
still largely produce building managers? Do we still perpetuate, as Gary Martin (2006)
suggested in his 2005 address, the allowance of systems to remain unchanged? Therefore
leaving in tact, systems focused on only one part of the equation which limits any potential for
success in the 21st century. As he suggested then, “The challenge is to prepare leaders with
the skill and desire to research, implement, and assess changes on a systemic level.”
Additional data demanding changes in practice and a call for action resonated from the ETS
(Kirsch, Braun & Yamamoto) document America’s perfect storm (2007). There are three foci:
the growing gap between those who have and those who don’t, the new skills needed in the
workplace and life, and the changing demographics and growing diversity.
I agree with Gary Martin—we need schools where all are accountable for learning, even
students, and where we don’t just move on to the next grade or level. We need new skills
which challenge all students to their potential, mastering the left brain but opening to the
limitless potentials of the right as well, focusing all our attention on who and what is
learned—not how quickly, or by restriction of resources. We must focus on conceptual
understanding and the discovery of meaning, allowing for inquiry, interest, relevance and
relationship. Why do we need three credit-hour courses in disjointed topics such as law,
finance, and the curriculum? Is that how we lead once we are principals, or central office
administrators? Why are we not demanding a greater understanding of the context in which
our students will lead? How can a beginning administrator exemplify Standard 6 of the
Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (2008 without field based practica,
extensive guided practice or apprenticeships? Unfortunately, these are not always funded or
possible.
James (2008) suggested, “We are buried and mired in the second level of Maslow’s
hierarchy buying stuff, stuff and more stuff. Yet, we only get to self-respect by relationships
and by going deeper.” Similarly, Tony Wagner (2006) discussed the need to create rigor,
relevance and relationships in schools and in learning. I would have to agree, our programs
and our practices must be rigorous in order to guarantee that we are preparing the right
leaders, in the right ways, for the right positions willing to do the right things in the right
ways. How else can we begin to help them learn all of the managerial issues with which they
must deal efficiently while also being effective instructional leaders? The principals can’t do
it alone and neither can we.
NCPEA must have a relationship with every member and with our affiliate organizations.
Is your state listed as an affiliate? If not, help create one. Talk to our membership committee
or contact a nearby state’s affiliate for help. There is no more time for isolated research and
practice; we must work together to solve the real problems of practice in our schools and our
systems. Our students can wait no longer. We must find common interests, the common