Part 1 Research Paper

This is my first course in the educational leadership certificate. My prior degrees include a B.A., in Sociology, B.Ed. in Early Childhood Education, and a M.A. in Educational Studies. Most of the courses I took dealt with various topics in the field of education. Most of the courses I took in Early Childhood explored topics almost exclusively from the theoretical paradigm of cognitive psychology.

The content was heavy on Piaget and constructivist theory. During our observations we were required to record the various behaviour of children in daycare and school settings. We explored things like initiation of play, cooperation, etc. Having previously done a sociology degree, this was very frustrating. I feel that most teacher training Universities rely to heavily, if not exclusively, on educational psychology as the discipline of choice to explore the field of education. Very little time is spent exploring sociological issues like inequality in education, multicultural/anti-racist education, critical pedagogy, etc. In relying too heavily on psychology we get a narrow understanding of critical issues and fail to see the child as a subject that is shaped by social structures.

As a graduate student my course work was interdisciplinary in that I was required to explore issues in education from a philosophical, sociological, historical and psychological perspective. I gained more insight into the politics of education and how this impacts children and their ability to faqil or succeed.

Most of my favourite courses explored issues of race/ethnicity, class and gender as important variables that intersected with the social structures of society and the education system in particular.

The theoretical paradigm that focuses heavily on such variables is critical pedagogy and anti-racist education. Some of my favourite authors who write from such perspective include Michael Apple (see Education and Power, 1982), Paulo Freire (see The Politics ofr Education, 1985), and Peter McLaren (see Life In Schools:An Introduction to Critical Pedagogyin the Foundations of Education, 1998). All these writers explored what others have overlooked: marginalization, powerlessness, oppression, inequality. On the issue of inequality, these educational thinkers argue that there is a disjuncture between economic and educational rewards and efforts to link school reform to the market value of education threatens to abandon large segments of youth living in the economic fringes.

The educational structures (i.e., assessment, tests, curriculum content) favour and are predicated on the life-experiences of middle class youth of the dominant culture. Minorities and children in the lower end of the socio-economic continuum have the deck stacked against them.
Not all is doom and gloom, however, and this was articulated by one of my philosophy professors who had great faith in the ability for school reform. There are many like-minded individuals in the field of education who want to see all children succeed. Great efforts have been made to level the playing field for children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is where the ideas of decentralization and democratization of schooling can be vehicules for change.

The present course I am taking (Edem-628) includes essays on educational leadership and the idea for decentralization and democratization are explored in several essays including: "The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management", by Jane L. David, and "Leadership for the 21st Century: Breaking the Bonds of dependency", by Michael Fullan.

The essay by David echoes some of the pleas for empowering teachers and students that I read in the works of Freire and Apple. In discussing the benefits of site-based management, David argues that involving teachers, parents and community members in decisions about schooling is important in addressing the particular needs of students at risk. The potential for change is enormous, however, one must also examine the micro-politics of schooling and be wary of Governing Board members, for example, that have their own parochial agendas to move forward.

The essay by Michael Fullan (Leadership for the 21st Century...) also echoes a very fundamental precept of critical thinkers like Freire -- the powerful concept of hope. Critical pedagogy has often been criticized for failing to provide solutions in lieu of doom and gloom scenarios where change was never conceivable. Fullan describes how reform-minded administrators can form new alliances to affect change. In one of the four guidelines he describes the need to fight for lost causes. In my favourite line he writes about hope: "Principals with hope are much less likely to succumb to the daily stresses of the job." (p.21).

This is probably the most important lesson that I can take from his essay. Much too often I have found myself in my office asking why I ever got into administration. I see children come in the school with the same problems (behavioural and socio-emotional) and this takes a toll. I need to begin to see some of the little things that have contributed positively to the livfes of these children. The idea that an adult in their lives cares enough to provide them with free breakfast and lunch can probably be sources of hope in their own lives. I think this is where we as administrators must focus: keep hoping and fight for the lost causes.

WEEK 2 EDEM 628

I was ready to join in on Live Classroom on Monday the 14th, however I was left out in the cold. I could not hear anybody nor could I write any text. The next day I called an EMSB techie and he explained that my problem was the dial-up internet that I have at home. I tried the set up wizard at my office using high-speed and things seemed to go well. To test it out, Sam and I did a test run and things checked out okay. After going through the in's and out's (breakout room, etc. ) I feel comfortable with this format (it's my first time) and look forward to joing the group on Monday, 21st.

Although I did not participate in last week's class, I did read the article by Jane L. David. What I found interesting about the article is the fact that site-based management and cite-councils, as they are referred to in the U.S., are called Governing Boards in Quebec. I am pretty sure that this would be the equivalent of what she describes.

What I enjoyed about the article was how she pointed out the contradictions and problems inherent in such organizations. In the case of Governing Board, the idea is that the democratization of decision making will effectively engender greater student achievement. However, what this greater success for students means is never really articulated, nor is it explored in the article. When we say increased student achievement are we only referring to higher grades? Do we factor in other things llike increased self-confidence or the general social-developmental aspect of the child? This is important if we are going to measure (if that is at all possible) long-term effects of student achievement.

My own experiences with Governing Boards reinforce an important point addressed by David: broadening the decision-making base does not necessarily yield greater student achievement. I think this is true especially if the decision-making body is bogged-down by trivial issues and self-congratulatory items like fund-raising targets and field-trips. One of the most frustrating aspects of Governing Board is the desire to tackle money issues and fund-raising. Everybody is fundrasing for this and that and all schools are pressured to follow. Money is often raised and the most popular item on the wish list becomes computers. The idea that greater access and time spent on computers is tantamount to increasing student achievement is a very common one. I don't believe that more computers or books for the library or newer textbooks, in and of themselves, will generate greater success. Very little or no time is spent tying to figure out what we will do with the students in the fourth grade that are reading at a first-grade level. How will more books and a lap-top help such a child? The bigger and more fundamental questions are often pushed aside.

That is it for now.