As you may or may not know, I have enrolled onto the EdD – doctorate in Education. I have begun this part-time professional doctorate by undertaking the optional module ED60277 Educational Management, Leadership and Administration. This intensive summer school week began on Wednesday the 28th of June and ended on Wednesday the 5th of July.
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to my school and leaders for letting me undertake this valuable opportunity for my own career development. I found this intensive summer school to be super enriching and valuable. I have met teachers from international schools from a CEO in an Educational institution, a HE teacher practitioner from Las Vegas, Nevada, to government officials working in the middle east. Having a dialogue about education throughout the week has been incredibly enlightening and has given me new insights into education as a sector. In addition to this, these doctoral colleagues I can see being good friends over the duration of this module and the wider length of the course.
This blog post will break down what each day looked like through the lens of my experience.
Wednesday 28/06/2023 – Dr. Michael Fertig
Session 1: Welcome and introduction to the unit
Session 2: Educational Management theories
I want to share my experience with my undertaking of the ED60277 Educational Management, Leadership, and Administration unit at the University of Bath. This unit has been an eye-opening and transformative journey, equipping me with the knowledge and skills to navigate the complexities of educational management and leadership.
From the very beginning, the unit emphasized the importance of developing a critical understanding of the field. We delved into the multiple disciplinary influences that shape educational management, recognizing the applied nature of the field and the intricate relationship between theory and practice. Understanding how social, economic, political, and legislative contexts impact theory and practice provided a broader perspective on the challenges faced in educational leadership.
One of the highlights of the unit was learning how to evaluate research and literature relevant to the field. We were taught to critically analyze research methodologies, review research findings, and assess the value and limitations of different approaches to educational management and leadership. This skill empowered me to make informed judgments about which approaches are best suited to my own educational context.
The “flipped classroom” approach adopted in the unit truly enhanced the learning experience. We were encouraged to engage with session resources ahead of time, which allowed us to come to sessions prepared and ready to contribute. The interactive nature of the sessions facilitated meaningful discussions, where we could share our thoughts, ideas, and personal experiences. The discussion forum further nurtured collaboration among students, fostering ongoing conversation and knowledge sharing.
Collaboration played a significant role throughout the unit. Building relationships with fellow students and tutors was invaluable, as it provided opportunities to exchange ideas, gain diverse perspectives, and explore different theories. I had the privilege of engaging in discussions and negotiating a precise assignment topic that aligned with my interests and the unit’s learning outcomes. The guidance and support from Michael was instrumental in shaping my assignment and ensuring its alignment with the unit’s goals.
Speaking of assignments, the unit offered two compelling options. Option 1 allowed for a comprehensive literature review, critically surveying research literature on leadership or management practices within an educational organization. Option 2, on the other hand, involved a critical analysis of a specific leadership or management practice within an educational context, exploring its underlying theory and philosophy. Both options proposed different challenges to me to connect theory with real-life educational scenarios and consider the implications for practice.
Throughout the assignment process, my assigned tutor will play a vital role. Regular communication and feedback sessions will help me refine my ideas and ensure that my assignment meet the unit’s requirements. The nine-month timeframe provided ample opportunity to conduct thorough research, analyze data, and produce a well-crafted assignment that showcased my critical understanding of the field.
Resources play a vital role in expanding our understanding of educational management, and the session for this unit provides several valuable resources to aid our exploration. One such resource is the chapter from Rost & Burns’ book “Leadership for the Twenty-First Century.” In this chapter, the authors delves into the research base of leadership and management, attempting to distinguish between the two and critique what they term as “the industrial paradigm of leadership.” Rost & Burns’ definition of management provides a thought-provoking perspective that may resonate with one’s own experiences in an educational context.
Their view of management suggests that people generally prefer to be managed, as long as it is not equated with dictatorship. They argue that individuals crave order, stability, well-run programs, and the successful operation of an organization. Moreover, effective management is so widely expected in developed countries that it is often taken for granted. Reflecting on these ideas, you may find parallels between Rost & Burns’ perspective and your own experiences with management in education.
Another valuable resource is the interview with Henry Mintzberg, a renowned management thinker. Mintzberg provides an overview of his thinking on management, drawing from his seminal work “The Nature of Managerial Work” and discussing its development over the years. Comparing Mintzberg’s views with those of Rost & Burns and your own understanding of management can offer valuable insights and help you analyze management issues within your educational institution.
Mintzberg sees management as a multifaceted practice that involves a combination of analytical thinking, interpersonal skills, and decision-making. This view aligns with Rost & Burns’ perspective on the importance of effective management. Exploring Mintzberg’s ideas can provide me with a fresh lens to analyze and address management challenges in my educational context.
Additionally, Peter Hallinger’s article “Developing a knowledge base for educational leadership and management in East Asia” offers an examination of how educational leadership and management have been constructed in the East Asian region. Hallinger argues for the need to develop a context-based research base specific to East Asia. Reflecting on the ideas presented in this article can help me assess the relevance of these management concepts to my own practices.
Connolly, James, and Fertig’s article “The difference between educational management and educational leadership and the importance of educational responsibility” explores the distinctions between management and leadership in education. Their perspective highlights that management entails delegation and responsibility for the proper functioning of an educational system, while leadership involves influencing others to achieve goals. Evaluating their ideas and comparing them to one’s own experiences can offer valuable insights into the dynamics of educational management and leadership.
The session resources also include a range of articles by various authors, such as Craig, Gosling & Mintzberg, Joullié, Klett & Arnulf, Locke, Lu & Hallinger, and Pirson. These articles provide further perspectives on management theory and practice, indigenous management theories, the role of team cooperation, and humanistic approaches to management. While it may not be possible to delve into each article in this blog post, exploring these resources can enrich one’s understanding of educational management and broaden one’s knowledge base.
Overall, the resources provided in this session offered a diverse range of perspectives on educational management and leadership. They challenged us to critically evaluate our own experiences, engage with different theoretical frameworks, and consider the applicability of these concepts to our educational contexts. By reflecting on these resources and incorporating their insights into our thinking, we can enhance our understanding of the complexities of educational management and leadership and become better equipped to address the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
The ED60277 Educational Management, Leadership, and Administration unit at the University of Bath has been an enriching and transformative experience. The comprehensive understanding of the field, the ability to evaluate research and literature, the collaborative learning environment, and the support from tutors all contributed to my growth as an aspiring educational leader. I feel confident and empowered to make meaningful contributions to the field of educational management and leadership.
Thursday 29/06/2023 – Dr. Brendan Higgins
Session 3: Educational Leadership theories examined and compared:
Today, I had the privilege of attending a thought-provoking seminar on educational leadership facilitated by Dr. Brendan Higgins. The session revolved around five seminal readings that provided valuable insights into leadership within educational contexts. I want to share my experience and reflections on the content covered during the seminar, which has truly broadened my understanding of educational leadership.
Exploring Seminal Readings:
Dr. Higgins introduced us to a selection of resources that served as the foundation for our discussions. Each resource was presented on a slide, accompanied by a link to the paper for further exploration. The aim was to evaluate these readings through a set of insightful questions, encouraging us to critically analyze their relevance and application.
One of the readings that left a lasting impression on me was Bass B.M.’s paper from 1990, titled “From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.” This early and influential work introduced the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership, which have become integral to our understanding of leadership. I found Bass’s distinction between these two leadership styles, discussed on pages 20-22, particularly thought-provoking. It made me reflect on my own experiences of leadership within an educational context and consider the effectiveness of different approaches.
Another enlightening resource was Bass and Avolio’s 1993 paper titled “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture.” This exploration of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational culture shed light on the dynamics at play within educational institutions. The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership mentioned on page 112 prompted me to assess how these concepts aligned with my personal experiences and practice in educational leadership.
Furthermore, Dimmock’s 2020 paper, “Connecting research and knowledge on educational leadership in the West and Asia: adopting a cross-cultural comparative perspective,” offered valuable insights into the need for a cross-cultural approach to studying educational leadership. By advocating for a universal/global knowledge base, Dimmock raised important issues about cultural diversity and its impact on educational leadership practices. This perspective challenged my previous assumptions and highlighted the significance of cultural context in leadership.
Additionally, Smit’s 2018 paper on Relational Leadership Theory (RLT) emphasized the importance of fostering strong relationships with stakeholders for achieving educational outcomes. Considering the strengths and limitations of RLT in my own context enabled me to recognize the critical role of interpersonal connections and influence in effective leadership.
Finally, Solinger, Jansen, and Cornelissen’s 2020 article, “The Emergence of Moral Leadership,” delved into the development of moral leadership within organizations. Although the study focused on non-educational organizations, I pondered whether the ideas presented could be relevant in the educational sphere. Exploring the notion of moral leadership as a beacon of recognition challenged me to consider how it could be applied within my own educational organization.
Analyzing Critical Incidents:
Beyond the readings, Dr. Higgins encouraged us to reflect on critical incidents that we had encountered in our leadership journeys. These incidents provided a practical lens through which we could apply the theoretical concepts learned. Considering the context, background, goals, challenges, and actions taken in these incidents, we evaluated our own leadership behaviors and decision-making processes. The theoretical frameworks from the readings allowed us to interpret these incidents from a fresh perspective and contemplate alternative approaches that may have yielded better outcomes.
Attending Dr. Brendan Higgins’ seminar on educational leadership was a truly enriching experience. The exploration of seminal readings, coupled with the opportunity to analyze critical incidents, expanded my understanding of effective leadership within educational contexts. The distinctions between transactional and transformational leadership, the significance of organizational culture, the importance of cross-cultural perspectives, the value of relational leadership, and the emergence of moral leadership all left a profound one of the most valuable aspects of the seminar was the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions with fellow attendees. The seminar included a dedicated discussion forum where we could share our thoughts, insights, and reflections on the readings and critical incidents. This collaborative environment fostered a rich exchange of ideas and perspectives, allowing us to learn from one another’s experiences and interpretations. The diverse range of backgrounds and expertise among the participants further enriched the discussions, providing a broader understanding of educational leadership from different contexts.
Overall, the seminar challenged my preconceived notions and prompted me to critically reflect on my own leadership practices. It highlighted the importance of continuous learning and staying abreast of seminal research in the field of educational leadership. The readings and discussions expanded my toolkit of leadership approaches and strategies, equipping me with a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities that arise in educational settings.
As I continue my journey in educational leadership, I am grateful for the insights gained from the seminar. The theories and concepts explored, coupled with the practical analysis of critical incidents, have undoubtedly shaped my perspective and approach to leadership. I now have a deeper appreciation for the significance of transformational leadership, the influence of organizational culture, the need for cross-cultural perspectives, the power of relational leadership, and the role of moral leadership in educational contexts.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Brendan Higgins for facilitating such an engaging and enlightening seminar. His expertise, passion, and commitment to fostering meaningful discussions made this learning experience truly valuable. I also extend my appreciation to the fellow attendees for their active participation and willingness to share their knowledge and experiences.
Attending this seminar on educational leadership has been a transformative experience. It has broadened my horizons, challenged my assumptions, and provided me with a solid foundation to enhance my leadership effectiveness. Armed with new insights and a deeper understanding of leadership theories and practices, I am confident in my ability to navigate the complexities of educational leadership and make a positive impact in my organization.
Friday 30/06/2023
Session 4: Dr. Pedro Pineda – Neo-instutional theory, cultural globalisation and organisational change
Participating in Dr. Pedro Pineda’s session on Neo-institutional theory, cultural globalization, and organizational change was an intellectually stimulating experience that shed light on the intricate dynamics of educational systems and their broader social contexts. The session explored various theories and frameworks, offering valuable insights into the role of institutions, cultural globalization, and social constructionism in shaping educational practices.
One of the main theories discussed during the session was Neo-institutionalism. Neo-institutionalism emphasizes the idea that educational reforms are not isolated occurrences but are deeply embedded in wider ideologies and cultural devices. The concept of isomorphism was highlighted, referring to the tendency of organizations to become similar to each other or to conform to broader institutional models. This discussion provided a fresh perspective on educational reform, recognizing the influence of global models of change and the direction they emphasize.
Another theory that featured prominently in the session was social constructionism. According to this perspective, knowledge is not seen as an independent entity but rather as derived from social interactions. Social constructionism emphasizes that meanings and practices emerge through mutual observation and interaction, shaping habits and customs. This understanding has significant implications for education as an institution, as it underscores the importance of social interactions and the development of shared meanings in educational settings.
The session also touched upon critical perspectives in education. Critical theories, such as those put forth by Bowles and Gintis, Collins, Bourdieu, and critical pedagogies like Freire and Giroux, highlight the focus on social inequalities and challenge existing power structures. These perspectives encourage a critical examination of educational systems, questioning the underlying assumptions and norms that perpetuate social disparities.
Within the framework of institutionalism, the concept of legitimation was explored, emphasizing the role of cognitive validity and normative dignity in justifying the institutional order. Legitimation involves both knowledge and values, shaping individuals’ understanding of why things are the way they are. This discussion highlighted the significance of social reality and the construction of institutional order, wherein actors appear to choose the correct and required actions without full awareness or purposiveness.
The session also delved into the expansion of education as an institution and the factors influencing its growth. Empirical evidence suggests that the expansion of education follows an S-shaped curve, with slow initial progress, accelerated growth in the middle stages, and eventual slowing down near universal enrollment. The pace of expansion is primarily driven by the size of the previously uneducated population, and the impact of structural characteristics of societies, such as economic, political, social, and cultural factors, is relatively weak.
Throughout the session, the notion of cultural globalization and its impact on educational systems was a recurring theme. Cultural globalization refers to the spread of ideas, beliefs, practices, and values across different societies and the blurring of boundaries between cultures. The session emphasized the influence of Western culture, rooted in medieval Christendom, and its impact on shaping educational institutions worldwide. However, it was acknowledged that cultural globalization is not solely driven by Western influences, and emerging cultural contexts, such as China and the former USSR, also play a significant role.
The session concluded with a critical reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the discussed theories and frameworks. While Neo-institutionalism provides valuable insights into the dynamics of educational reform and isomorphism, it is important to consider economic factors, power dynamics, and emerging cultural influences. Similarly, cultural globalization should be examined with a broader lens to encompass diverse cultural contexts and their interplay with educational systems.
Participating in Dr. Pedro Pineda’s session on Neo-institutional theory, cultural globalization, and organizational change provided a comprehensive overview of the complex factors influencing educational systems. The session encouraged critical thinking and offered alternative explanations to traditional theories, promoting a deeper understanding of the role of institutions, cultural globalization, and social constructionism in shaping educational practices. The session highlighted the need to examine education as an institution within its larger societal context and emphasized the importance of considering power dynamics, social inequalities, and emerging cultural influences.
The insights gained from this session have significant implications for educational policymakers, administrators, and practitioners. Understanding the embeddedness of educational reform in broader ideologies and cultural devices allows for a more holistic approach to change initiatives. Recognizing the influence of global models of change and the tendency towards isomorphism can help educational institutions navigate reform efforts more effectively.
Moreover, the session’s focus on social constructionism underscores the significance of social interactions and shared meanings in educational settings. This perspective calls for educators to create inclusive learning environments that foster mutual observation, interaction, and the development of knowledge through social coordination. It challenges traditional notions of education as a one-way transmission of information and highlights the importance of collaborative and participatory approaches to learning.
The critical perspectives discussed during the session also serve as a powerful reminder of the need to address social inequalities within education. By examining the underlying assumptions, norms, and power structures that perpetuate inequities, educators and policymakers can work towards creating more inclusive and just educational systems. This involves challenging existing practices, engaging in critical dialogue, and actively promoting social change within educational institutions.
Furthermore, the session’s exploration of cultural globalization and its impact on education provides valuable insights into the evolving nature of educational systems in an interconnected world. Recognizing the influence of Western culture while acknowledging the emergence of diverse cultural contexts allows for a more nuanced understanding of the forces shaping educational practices. It encourages educators to embrace cultural diversity, promote intercultural understanding, and engage with multiple perspectives within the educational setting.
Overall, participating in Dr. Pedro Pineda’s session on Neo-institutional theory, cultural globalization, and organizational change was a thought-provoking experience. The session provided a comprehensive exploration of various theories and frameworks, offering valuable insights into the complexities of educational systems. It emphasized the need for a multidimensional understanding of institutions, cultural influences, and social dynamics in educational practices. Armed with these insights, educators and policymakers can work towards creating more inclusive, responsive, and equitable educational environments that meet the needs of diverse learners in an ever-changing global landscape.
Session 5: Dr. Tristan Bunnell – Educational Organisations: An institutional perspective
I want to share my experience attending Dr. Tristan Bunnell’s session on educational organizations from an institutional perspective. Let me tell you, it was an eye-opening and thought-provoking session that delved into the concept of institutional legitimacy in schools. So, grab a mug of coffee and join me as I share some key takeaways from this enlightening session.
Dr. Bunnell started by introducing a body of literature that emerged after an incident that affected international schools in Jakarta back in April 2014. This incident sparked a discussion about the legitimacy of educational organizations and their claim to be recognized as institutions. It raised questions about how schools can establish legitimacy and align their practices with the expectations of their environment.
One of the main ideas discussed was the reconceptualization and redefinition of educational leadership practice. Traditional definitions of educational leadership view it as influence to achieve organizational goals. However, these definitions have been critiqued for their limitations. Dr. Bunnell and his colleagues proposed a more robust definition that focuses on legitimate interaction in an educational institution intended to enhance engagement with the institutional primary task. This redefinition emphasized the importance of aligning institutional practices with external demands.
The session also explored the institutionalization of organizations, highlighting their enduring nature and the stability and meaning they provide to social life. Institutions can enable and constrain actions and are present in various aspects of society, including schools. Understanding the institutionalization process is crucial for schools to establish their legitimacy. This involves aligning practices and processes with external demands and engaging with different institutional logics that may be at play.
During the session, we discussed the institutionalization process in practice and its impact on schools. The Summer of 2021, for example, saw educators bringing the discourse and language of the Black Lives Matter Movement into schools, leading to discussions and changes in procedures, policies, and activities. This process of institutionalization starts with discussions and can lead to the introduction of new roles and committees within the school. The role of school leadership and accreditation was also emphasized in this process, as they play a crucial role in shaping and guiding institutional changes.
It was fascinating to learn how quickly this process can become ‘normal’ within an institution. Over time, what initially emerges within the Cultural-Cognitive Pillar can become a part of the Normative Pillar, shaping the identity and practices of the institution. The style of leadership and the form of the emerging institution also play important roles in this process.
The session also touched upon the impact of institutionalization on experienced teachers’ identities. The institutionalization forces required by processes like the ‘IB World School’ authorization process can significantly affect teachers’ identities. While the institutionalization process can be coercive, the teachers appear to be willing participants. This raised important questions about the implications for professional development activities and teacher induction programs.
Dr. Bunnell’s session highlighted the significance of the institutional primary task in establishing a school’s legitimacy as an International School. Providing an international curriculum emerged as a crucial aspect of legitimacy. The school leader plays a vital role in developing and implementing the institutional primary task, shaping the school’s identity and giving it legitimacy as an organization and an institution.
To dive deeper into these topics, Dr. Bunnell recommended further reading and resources. The articles and papers mentioned provide valuable insights into the institutionalization of schools, the implications for school leaders, and the development of internationally-minded schools.
Attending Dr. Tristan Bunnell’s session on educational organizations from an institutional perspective was an enriching experience. It shed light on the complex process of establishing institutional legitimacy in schools and the importance of aligning practices with external demands. As educators, understanding the dynamics of institutionalization can help us create schools that are responsive, inclusive, and aligned with the evolving needs ofour students and the broader educational landscape.
The session left me pondering several important questions. Have you noticed the institutionalization process within any educational institution? It’s fascinating to observe how discussions and changes can gradually become embedded in the fabric of an organization, shaping its identity and practices. Reflecting on where this process starts, we realize that it often begins with passionate educators and leaders who initiate conversations and drive the alignment of institutional practices with external demands.
Accreditation also plays a significant role in the institutionalization process. It serves as a mechanism to ensure that schools meet certain standards and expectations. By undergoing the accreditation process, schools are pushed to evaluate their practices and make necessary improvements to enhance their legitimacy. It becomes a driving force in the ongoing evolution of educational institutions.
Additionally, the session raised the intriguing question of how quickly this process can become “normal” within an institution. As new practices, policies, and roles are introduced, they gradually become part of the institution’s identity, shifting from the Cultural-Cognitive Pillar to the Normative Pillar. This highlights the importance of thoughtful leadership and intentional institutionalization efforts to shape the emerging institution in a positive and inclusive manner.
The style of leadership employed during the institutionalization process also deserves attention. Leaders who foster collaboration, open dialogue, and shared decision-making can create a sense of ownership among stakeholders and facilitate smoother transitions. A transformative style of leadership that encourages innovation and adaptability can empower educators to embrace change and contribute to the evolution of the institution.
Moreover, the impact of institutionalization on experienced teachers’ identities raises intriguing questions. As schools undergo the institutionalization process, teachers may experience shifts in their professional identities and roles. It emphasizes the need for comprehensive professional development activities and supportive induction programs that help teachers navigate these changes and align their identities with the evolving institutional landscape.
In conclusion, attending Dr. Tristan Bunnell’s session on educational organizations from an institutional perspective was an enlightening experience. It deepened my understanding of the institutionalization process in schools and the significance of establishing legitimacy. It reinforced the importance of aligning practices with external demands, engaging with institutional logics, and fostering inclusive leadership practices. As educators, it is crucial for us to critically examine our institutions and engage in ongoing dialogue to create learning environments that are authentic, responsive, and meaningful for our students and communities.
Saturday 01/07/2023 – Dr. Michael Fertig
Session 6: Gender and educational leadership
I recently had the opportunity to attend a fascinating session by Dr. Michael Fertig on gender and educational leadership. The discussion delved into various key themes, shedding light on the importance of leadership diversity, the impact of gender stereotypes on leadership perceptions, and the unique challenges faced by women in educational leadership roles.
One of the primary topics explored during the session was the concept of leadership diversity and its significance. Dr. Fertig highlighted the need for diverse leadership teams, emphasizing that diversity goes beyond observable characteristics like race and gender. It also encompasses invisible attributes such as religion, education, and tenure within an organization. Understanding and valuing these diverse attributes can contribute to a more inclusive and effective leadership landscape.
The session also delved into the influence of gender stereotypes on leadership perceptions. It was disheartening to learn that the characteristics typically associated with men are often seen as more aligned with effective leadership and management, while those associated with women are perceived as disadvantages. This perpetuates biases and limits women’s aspirations and access to leadership roles. Dr. Fertig discussed the existence of male-centric leadership models and norms that hinder women’s progress in leadership positions, further perpetuating gender inequality.
An intriguing concept that came up during the session was the “glass ceiling.” This term describes an invisible yet formidable barrier that prevents women and minorities from advancing in the management hierarchy. The discussion also touched on the “queen bee syndrome,” a phenomenon where some women actively oppose changes in traditional gender roles. These insights shed light on the challenges women face in educational leadership and the need for systemic change.
The historical context surrounding gender and educational leadership was also explored. In the past, women were often expected to sacrifice their personal lives for the sake of their schools and students, perpetuating a “dutiful daughter” script. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, a new gender script emerged—the “superwoman” script. This script encouraged women to balance multiple roles, including being a principal, spouse, and parent. These gender scripts have shaped perceptions and expectations of women in leadership positions.
The session also highlighted the importance of recognizing and challenging gendered job differentiation within organizations. It was noted that female-dominated professions often focus on relational skills, while male-dominated professions prioritize technical and academic expertise. This disparity can limit women’s participation in certain fields, including leadership roles in education.
The discussion underscored the need for fair and inclusive leadership practices to counteract the pernicious effects of exclusion. Gender equality and diversity in educational leadership are vital for fostering a supportive and empowering environment for all stakeholders. As I reflect on the session, I realize that creating change requires collective efforts. It’s crucial for educational institutions to actively promote gender equity in leadership appointments and challenge existing biases and stereotypes. By embracing diverse leadership teams and providing equal opportunities for all individuals, we can cultivate an environment where everyone’s talents and contributions are valued.
Attending Dr. Michael Fertig’s session on gender and educational leadership was an eye-opening experience. It shed light on the systemic challenges faced by women in leadership roles and emphasized the need for ongoing efforts to create a more inclusive educational landscape. As we move forward, let’s strive to challenge gender stereotypes, dismantle the glass ceiling, and empower women to take on leadership positions in education. Together, we can pave the way for a brighter and more equitable future.
Session 7:Covid-19 and Educational Leadership
I wanted to share my experience attending Dr. Michael Fertig’s session on gender and educational leadership. Let me tell you, it was eye-opening and thought-provoking! Dr. Fertig delved into various key themes related to the global context of the pandemic and how it has impacted school leadership.
One of the first things Dr. Fertig highlighted was the worldwide and rapid policy enactment during the pandemic. It’s astonishing to think that about 98.5% of the world’s student population was affected by nationwide closures (UNESCO, 2020). The changes in the education landscape were unprecedented and, as Dr. Fertig pointed out, often happened out of necessity rather than deliberate planning (Netolicky, 2020).
As school leaders, we found ourselves navigating uncharted territory. The pandemic presented new challenges that tested educational leadership theories. Our work environment became more unstable and fluid (Arnold et al., 2021), and we faced increased scrutiny from external stakeholders (Fotheringham et al., 2021). It sometimes felt like we were being micro-managed and that our professionalism was being diminished due to the political demands placed upon us (Stone-Johnson & Weiner, 2020).
Sense-making became a crucial process for us as leaders. We had to construct meaning in this new reality and take action (Hulme et al., 2021). We found ourselves positioned at crucial organizational junctures, acting as mediators of external messages (Hulme et al., 2021). It was essential to make sense of the information overload and make informed decisions that prioritized the well-being of our students, staff, and communities.
Speaking of well-being, the pandemic had a significant impact on our self-efficacy and stress levels. The external pressures forced us to engage in self-examination and soul-searching (Pedroso et al., 2021). But at the same time, it provided us with a unique opportunity to reflect and adjust our leadership practices to deal with the crisis (Brinkman et al., 2021). However, it was challenging to balance our own stress and anxiety while being strong pillars of support for our students, parents, and colleagues (Reid, 2021).
The relationships with our colleagues within the school also underwent significant changes. Initially, we faced new demands and challenges, but over time, we focused more on staff well-being and adjusted schedules to accommodate individual circumstances (Chaseling et al., 2020). Communication played a crucial role in supporting each other, students, and parents during these challenging times (Beauchamp et al., 2021). It was heartening to see how the spirit and tone of our communication expanded, emphasizing empathy and understanding.
The pandemic also brought about a shift in how we engaged with our local communities and external stakeholders. We realized the need to increase our presence beyond the physical walls of our schools and stay attuned to the ever-changing circumstances (Longmuir, 2021). Our communication with parents and community members increased significantly (Okilwa & Barnett, 2021). This deepened connection and collaboration between schools and communities may have long-lasting effects on how we approach leadership in the future.
Dr. Fertig prompted us to question whether the pandemic has challenged established bureaucratic systems and ways of working in schools (Ansell et al., 2020). The crisis accelerated the need for digitalization in education, which will likely remain a post-pandemic priority (Zancajo et al., 2022). We also need to address the equalities agenda and focus on upskilling the teaching profession (Zancajo et al., 2022). These long-term responses require us to rethink our approaches to leadership and explore innovative solutions to address the evolving needs of our educational organizations.
Attending Dr. Fertig’s session made me reflect on my own experience of educational leadership during the pandemic. I realized the immense challenges we faced and the resilience we demonstrated as leaders. It was a rollercoaster ride of adapting to rapid changes, making tough decisions, and supporting our school communities through uncertainty. Despite the stress and pressures, we found ways to connect, collaborate, and provide the best possible education under the circumstances.
I couldn’t help but wonder about the implications for leadership theory. The pandemic pushed us to redefine our roles and responsibilities, challenging traditional notions of leadership. We had to embrace agility, empathy, and effective communication to navigate the crisis successfully. This “new normal” forced us to think outside the box and consider a more holistic and relational approach to leadership (Thomson et al., 2021). The experiences and lessons learned during this time will undoubtedly shape future leadership theories and practices.
As I listened to the insights shared by Dr. Fertig and engaged in discussions with fellow educators, I realized that I wasn’t alone in my experiences. School leaders from different parts of the world faced similar struggles and triumphs (Flack et al., 2021). We formed a global community of leaders who supported and learned from one another. This sense of solidarity gave me hope and reinforced the importance of collaboration in times of crisis.
Attending Dr. Fertig’s session was a valuable experience that allowed me to reflect on my own journey as an educational leader during the pandemic. It shed light on the broader context of the global crisis, the challenges faced by school leaders, and the potential long-term impacts on education. It’s clear that our roles have expanded beyond traditional boundaries, and we must continue to adapt and grow as leaders.
As we move forward, let’s remember the lessons learned and the strength we discovered during this unprecedented time. Let’s continue to support one another, advocate for the needs of our students and communities, and strive for educational excellence. Together, we can navigate the complexities of the “new normal” and shape a future where educational leadership is more resilient, inclusive, and impactful than ever before.
Monday 03/07/2023
Session 7: Educational Organisation: affective aspects by Dr. Jim Horden
I’m excited to share with you my experience attending Dr. Jim Hordern’s seminar on Educational Organizations: Affective Aspects. Let me tell you, it was a fascinating exploration of the hidden dimensions of our educational institutions and the role of emotions within them.
The seminar began by delving into the concept of the unconscious mind. We learned that the unconscious is the realm of ideas, feelings, impressions, and desires that we are not consciously aware of, often formed in the early stages of our lives. It was intriguing to consider how these unconscious processes influence our experiences within educational organizations.
One key aspect discussed was the affective intensity within educational institutions. These places can evoke strong feelings and emotions due to factors such as uncertainty, unpredictability, and the complex nature of social relations. It was interesting to reflect on how our experiences of educational change, whether invigorating, depressing, or more of the same, are intertwined with the affective aspects of these organizations.
We also explored the concept of social defenses, which are patterns of behavior that we often take for granted and employ to reduce the emergence of unwelcome feelings. These defenses can be deeply embedded in organizational practices and may not always be immediately apparent. Recognizing and understanding these defenses can shed light on the processes of change within education.
During the seminar, we delved into various social defenses, including rituals, routines, projection, introjection, regression, repression, resistance, and splitting. Each of these defenses serves as a mechanism for dealing with challenging emotions and maintaining a sense of stability within educational organizations. However, they can also hinder genuine growth and prevent the organization from addressing the source of anxiety.
The seminar also touched upon the concept of transference, which refers to the unconscious tendency to relate to important figures, such as leaders, in ways that repeat earlier relationships with parental figures. This transference can significantly impact relationships within educational organizations, as colleagues may see leaders as figures of parental authority from the past, leading to intense feelings of admiration, distrust, or envy.
Another intriguing topic discussed was scapegoating. In situations where emotions need to be discharged, the process of projection allows for the displacement of anger, frustration, and disappointment onto an individual or group. This scapegoating process can provide temporary unity within a group but fails to address the underlying source of anxiety and can be profoundly unjust.
The seminar also explored the role of the unconscious in educational institutions. While there are different perspectives on the nature of the unconscious mind, we discussed Freud’s view of the unconscious as a repository of repressed urges, ideas, and feelings, as well as Jung’s perspective on the collective unconscious and archetypes embedded over generations. These archetypes can shape our understanding of teaching as a vocation and influence behaviors that are resistant to change.
Furthermore, the seminar touched upon the importance of boundaries within educational organizations. Boundaries exist at intrapersonal, authority, political, task, and identity levels. Organizations evolve through the setting, management, and maintenance of boundaries, which can reflect power dynamics and control within education. It was fascinating to consider how the physical use of space can represent structures of power and control.
One crucial aspect of educational organizations discussed was the primary task, which refers to what individuals, groups, or organizations feel they must do to survive and continue their work. Clarifying the primary task is challenging but vital for ensuring institutional effectiveness. Task-related anxiety can be heightened during times of educational change, leading groups to deviate from their primary task and focus on fulfilling their unconscious needs through basic assumption tendencies.
Affective control and containment were also highlighted during the seminar. While affective control involves eradicating or controlling emotions, affective containment focuses on creating an environment that allows feelings to be surfaced, accepted, and reconfigured. Affective containment facilitates attachment to new purposes or work tasks and enables individuals and organizations to manage emotional demands effectively.
Emotional labor, another important aspect discussed, refers to the psychological effort required to regulate our emotions to meet the requirements of our work. In the context of education, emotional labor provides insights into the caring dimension of the profession and how notions of care can be influenced by political considerations. It prompted us to reflect on whether care is being commodified or depersonalized.
To sum it up, Dr. Jim Hordern’s seminar on Educational Organizations: Affective Aspects offered a deep dive into the unconscious dimensions of our educational institutions and the intricate role of emotions within them. Exploring topics such as affective intensity, social defenses, transference, scapegoating, and emotional labor provided valuable insights into the dynamics at play in educational organizations. It challenged us to consider the hidden forces that shape our experiences and interactions within these institutions.
Attending this seminar was truly enlightening, and I left with a fresh perspective on the affective aspects of educational organizations. It reinforced the significance of recognizing and understanding the unconscious processes, social defenses, and emotional dynamics that impact our work in education. Let’s strive to create organizations that promote affective containment, genuine care, and open dialogue, ultimately enhancing the well-being and effectiveness of our educational institutions.
Session 8: Distributed Leadership – Dr. Denise Misfud
Today, I want to share with you my experience attending Dr. Denise Mifsud’s seminar on Distributed Leadership. Let me tell you, it was a thought-provoking exploration of leadership dynamics in educational settings.
The seminar began by questioning the apparent neutrality of distributed leadership. Dr. Mifsud highlighted the influence of Foucault’s concept of governmentality and how it exposes the underlying politics within educational leadership discourses. It was a wake-up call to the fact that leadership is never purely objective or value-neutral.
One of the key takeaways from the seminar was the need to unmask the power dynamics at play in distributed leadership. Dr. Mifsud’s research bridged theory and method, providing insights into the unfolding of leadership distribution. We dove into the intricacies of this approach and its implications for educational organizations.
During the seminar, we also explored a systematic review of school distributed leadership conducted by Dr. Mifsud. This review examined research purposes, concepts, and approaches in the field between 2010 and 2022. It shed light on the evolving understanding of distributed leadership and the diverse ways in which it has been conceptualized and studied.
One of the most intriguing aspects discussed was the notion that distributed leadership is not just about sharing leadership responsibilities but also about sharing power. It challenges traditional hierarchical structures and encourages a more collaborative and inclusive approach to decision-making and problem-solving. Understanding the power dynamics within distributed leadership is crucial for ensuring its effectiveness and ethical implementation.
Another important aspect that Dr. Mifsud emphasized was the need to critically examine the assumptions underlying distributed leadership. While it is often seen as a progressive and empowering approach, we must be cautious not to overlook the potential pitfalls and unintended consequences. It requires thoughtful reflection and continuous evaluation to ensure that distributed leadership truly serves the best interests of students, teachers, and the entire educational community.
Dr. Mifsud’s seminar provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on the complexities of leadership in education. It challenged our preconceived notions and encouraged us to critically analyze the underlying politics and power dynamics. As educators, it is essential for us to be aware of these dynamics and strive for leadership practices that are transparent, inclusive, and focused on the well-being and growth of all stakeholders.
Attending this seminar was an eye-opening experience, and it left me with a renewed commitment to exploring and promoting effective leadership practices in education. Let’s continue to engage in meaningful discussions and research that can shape the future of educational leadership, fostering environments that empower and support everyone involved in the educational journey.
Tuesday 04/07/2023
Session 9: Professionalism and managing professionals – Logic, formation, discipline and jurisdiction – Dr. Jim Horden
Today, I had the privilege of attending Dr. Jim Horden’s captivating session on professionalism and managing professionals. It was a thought-provoking exploration of the various dimensions and challenges associated with professionalism, logic formation, discipline, and jurisdiction in the realm of education.
One of the key ideas discussed was professionalism as a ‘logic’ or a distinctive way of organizing work. According to Freidson (2001), professionalism is not just about possessing specialized knowledge but also about having a specific mode of organization that can effectively handle and nurture that knowledge. It is through interconnected institutions and a commitment to public service that professionals maintain their legitimacy and control over their respective areas of work.
In the context of organizing labor, Dr. Horden highlighted three logics: market, bureaucracy, and professionalism. While the market logic revolves around economic forces and competition, and bureaucracy emphasizes rules and control, professionalism stands out as a legitimately monopolistic system. Unlike the other two logics, professionalism requires time, effort, and a commitment to specialized knowledge acquisition.
But what distinguishes professional activity from the market and bureaucracy? This question sparked a lively discussion during the session. The classical model of professionalism, often associated with Anglo-American societies, emphasizes autonomy, control of the knowledge base, and the ability to govern one’s work. Professionals are expected to have a distinct role in society, controlling and shaping their own practices.
However, the classical model has faced criticisms over time. Some argue that it lacks accountability and fails to define standards of practice quality. Professional closure, where certain occupations seek to maintain exclusive control over their work, can lead to stagnation and a disregard for the influence of the organization and the state. Dr. Horden referenced Abbott (1988), who highlighted the struggles professions face in controlling their areas of work in the face of challenges from the state, the public, and other occupations.
Another critical aspect of professionalism explored in the session was professional formation and identity. Becoming a professional is not a one-time event but rather a continuous process that involves acquiring knowledge, developing a professional habitus, and socializing into the workplace culture. It is a combination of education and work-based experience that shapes the professional’s identity and influences their choices in aligning with different aspects of professionalism.
We discussed the importance of professional development and how it can play a crucial role in implementing educational change. Evans (2006) emphasized that ongoing professional development is key to adapting to evolving educational practices and ensuring the growth and effectiveness of professionals. By embracing opportunities for learning and expanding their knowledge base, educators can enhance their professionalism and contribute to positive changes in educational institutions.
Managing professionals in the field of education emerged as another significant challenge. Dr. Horden raised thought-provoking questions about the role of leaders and managers in education. Are leaders and managers a specific type of professional? How can professionals be effectively managed without compromising their autonomy and commitment to their profession? These questions highlighted the delicate balance between maintaining discipline and allowing professionals the freedom to exercise their expertise.
The session also touched upon the role of the state and employing organizations in defining professionalism. In many national contexts, the state has played a crucial role in providing shelter and support for the teaching profession. However, the increasing influence of market pressures and the rise of performance cultures have eroded teachers’ control over their work, curriculum, and pedagogy. It is essential to critically examine the impact of market forces on teachers’ autonomy and their relationships with other professions working with children and young people.
As I reflect on the session, I find myself pondering the challenges faced by educational professionals and the evolving nature of professionalism in our field. How can we effectively manage teaching professionals while respecting their autonomy and commitment to their profession? What can be done to enhance teacher professionalism and ensure that educators have a voice in shaping educational policies and practices? These questions invite us to engage in ongoing dialogue and collaboration to foster a culture of professionalism and excellence in education.
Dr. Jim Horden’s session on professionalism and managing professionals in the education sector provided valuable insights into the complexities of our profession. It encouraged us to critically examine the different logics of organizing work, the challenges of maintaining professionalism, and the role of professional development and identity formation. As educators, let us continue these conversations, collaborate with one another, and strive for continuous improvement in our professional practices. Together, we can shape the future of education and uphold the principles of professionalism in our field.
Session 10: Educational leadership, social justice and the capabilities approach – Dr. Micahel Fertig
Today, I had the opportunity to attend Dr. Michael Fertig’s seminar on Educational Leadership, Social Justice, and the Capabilities Approach. Let me tell you, it was a thought-provoking and eye-opening experience that challenged my perspective on the role of educational leaders and the concept of education itself.
Throughout the seminar, we delved into several key questions that really got me thinking. How does educational leadership intersect with the broader social, political, and philosophical context? What does this tell us about the nature of education and the responsibilities of educational leaders? And how can ideas related to social justice and the capabilities approach contribute to our understanding of these issues? These questions served as the foundation for our exploration.
One of the central themes discussed was the distinction between two approaches to understanding successful human development: the Human Capital approach and the Human Development & Capabilities approach. The Human Capital approach views education as an investment in human resources for economic growth, focusing primarily on economic outcomes. On the other hand, the Human Development & Capabilities approach places people at the center, aiming to expand individuals’ freedom and well-being, emphasizing the importance of education as a means of enhancing capabilities and enabling individuals to lead the lives they value.
The concept of social justice was also a significant focus of the seminar. We explored different dimensions of social justice, such as recognition, redistribution, and participatory justice, as identified by Fraser. Social justice involves equitable representation, sharing of power and resources, and the creation of an inclusive and egalitarian society. In the context of education, social justice calls for providing equal opportunities and resources to all students, regardless of their background, and creating an environment that fosters inclusivity and challenges unconscious biases.
The capabilities approach, introduced by Amartya Sen, offered a valuable lens for examining the relationship between educational leadership and social justice. Functionings, which represent valuable activities and states that contribute to well-being, and capabilities, which refer to the freedom to enjoy these functionings, are at the core of this approach. Educational leaders play a vital role in creating conditions that enable students to develop their capabilities and access valuable functionings. They are responsible for promoting an environment that nurtures critical thinking, supports students’ agency in pursuing their valued goals, and addresses the diverse needs and experiences of learners.
Furthermore, we discussed how the capabilities approach can inform educational policy and practice. By placing human dignity and well-being at the forefront, this approach calls for government action to ensure that core necessary conditions for flourishing lives are met. Educational leaders, in response to these ideas, can advocate for policies that prioritize the expansion of capabilities, empower students and teachers, and promote social justice within schools and communities. It requires a shift in focus from merely quantitative indicators of educational achievement to a deeper analysis of the nature of children’s participation, freedom, equity, and social justice.
As the seminar concluded, I was left with a powerful message: education is not solely about economic growth or academic outcomes. It is about nurturing the whole person, empowering individuals to lead fulfilling lives, and creating a just and inclusive society. Educational leaders have a significant role to play in realizing these ideals by embracing the capabilities approach, advocating for social justice, and creating environments that enable all students to flourish.
Attending Dr. Michael Fertig’s seminar was truly an enlightening experience. It challenged me to critically examine my own beliefs and practices as an educational leader. I left with a renewed commitment to championing social justice, promoting the expansion of capabilities, and fostering inclusive and empowering educational environments. Together, let’s work towards a future where education is a powerful force for positive change and a catalyst for a more equitable and just society.
So, that wraps up the seminars that I attended for the intensive summer school. I learnt so much and met some amazing people. Now to crack on with my doctoral assignment on the educational leadership practice of teacher retention!
A Space To Reflect 