Blazing New Trails - Connexions

336 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADERSHIP PREPARATION
(f) improvement not sufficiently focused on building school-level leadership and teacher
capacity; (g) no strategy for sustainability (Rhim, L. M., Kowal, J. M., Hassel, B. C., &
Hassel, E. A., 2007).
The need for a comprehensive educational turnaround professional development
model was clearly evident from the review of literature. The research from business and
public sectors had some promising practices, while others seemed impractical for the
educational organization. Businesses view failure as a natural course of improvement and
present a perspective that, if a business is too weak or poor to survive, they should be allowed
to go out of business. However, this failure approach would not be a viable option for a low
performing school unless another school took its place. Businesses claim that there are no
easy solutions and no one path to success. This assertion implies that, for schools, the
turnaround process needs to be very individualized and tailored to the context and community
of the school. The practice of retrenchment may work in schools rather than a market
manipulation approach. The business literature claimed that training and workshops do not
work, but experience watching and working alongside an expert would help in developing
new skills. The public sector research (Baden-Fuller & Stopford, 1992) emphasized the
importance of leadership capacity, which is also important in the educational organization.
This research stated that performance was complex and difficult to measure (Baden-Fuller &
Stopford, 1992). The same can be said of schools. However the use of the four stage
persuasion campaign and eliminating dysfunctional roles may have an impact in schools and
could be implemented.
There appears to be value in a training or professional development model for
turnaround leadership that encompasses leadership competencies (Steiner, 2009). Based on
this integrated literature review, we recommend a self-selection process for a professional
development provider and decentralized approach. The provider could be an individual
consultant, business mentor, professional development provider or a university.
EDUCATIONAL TURNAROUND LEADER PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT MODEL
When the individual educational leader is empowered to embrace decentralization
rather than centralization, the effect on schools is a more market-orientated approach to
educational improvement (Chapman, 2005). While there are some aspects of the currently
utilized turnaround models that can be retained, others are irrelevant in the Educational
Turnaround Leader Professional Development Model presented in this chapter. The school
principal and staff have ownership in making sustained and lasting change in the
decentralized model. As such, the theoretical framework for leadership development that is
presented in this chapter incorporated prior research findings as components of the
conceptualized model.
In the model presented, the localized needs of low performing schools can be met with
a more personalized approach that is responsive to individual needs of the educational
turnaround leader, school, district, and other stakeholders, such as the community, rather than
a centralized program viewed as a state intervention or takeover. We propose that an
individual who meets the turnaround leadership selection criteria and willingly accepts the
challenge of turning around a failing school without being forced to change school sites
would be personally vested in the professional development model and see it as a more
personalized and non-threatening approach to school turnaround and ultimately to the
improvement of student achievement.