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.