Paper presented during the 7th International Conference on Teacher Education (ICTED 2012) held on July 26-28, 2012, in University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

1. Transformational
Leadership
Through Collaborative Models
During Economic Crisis
Dr. Christopher H. Hunt
University of Redlands
California
2012

2. Results
Roger Temple Intermediate School
Margaret Duff Elementary School
Mary Putnam Henck Intermediate School
Adopted collaborative decision making models between 1990 and 2004
ALL THREE
• Experienced significant reduction in funding
• Increased Standardized Test Scores
• Decreased student suspensions
• Experienced reversals in student achievement when the
collaborative decision making model was removed

3. Features
• Binding shared governance with all stakeholder
groups: teachers, classified, parents,
community, students & administration
• Vision-centered
• Student achievement focus
• Extensive training
• Strong community partnerships
• Community service
• Administrative role: facilitator, trainer, district
liaison & “leader of leaders”

4. Unique Features
• Each Administrator taught his own class daily.
• Teachers determined what the administrator would
teach
• Teachers evaluated the administrators’ teaching
• Each teacher was “Principal’s Designee” two hours
a week.
• Teachers handled ALL the discipline.
• Each teacher had a $1000 budget
• Each teacher wrote an addendum to the School
Plan
• The principal’s resignation was in a frame on the
staff lounge wall.

5. Process

6. Timeline
Week SITE/Leadership Council
#1 *Task Forces
Week General Session
#2
Week Training/In-service
#3
Week Stakeholder Meetings
#4

7. Meeting Specifics
• 15 minutes were added to Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday and Friday– Wednesday for shorted
by one hour to facilitate the weekly meetings.
• Task Forces convened on an “as needed” basis
on Thursdays before or after school
• The Administrative team met after school on
Mondays to mentor the assistant principals.
• The Principal and Faculty President met after
school on Tuesdays to develop the SITE/Council
& General Session agendas.

8. Week #1 – Leadership/SITE
Council
• The SITE Council and Leadership Council were the
same people, meeting concurrently
• Composition: Reps from PTA, ASB, ELAC, Community, CSEA, ADMIN, GTA, Faculty Pres, Dept Chairs
– Two teachers had “half votes” on the SITE Council and full votes on the Leadership Council to achieve Compensatory Education compliance
on the SITE Council and Teacher equity on the Leadership Council.
(SITE Council 6-6; Leadership Council 8-1-8 ---- the Principal and CSEA roles changed on the two bodies)
• SITE/Leadership Council options:
– Make recommendation to General Session
– Remand to Task Force
– Remand to Administration

9. Week # 2 – General Session
• The General Session was composed of all teachers,
classified staff and interested parents, students &
members of the community.
By agreement, 50% of the vote must be teachers; other stakeholders had full votes unless they outnumbered the
teachers, in which case they cast fractional votes. The General Session was mandatory for teachers only.
• The General Session was chaired by the Faculty
President. The Faculty President and Principal met in advance to develop/review the agenda
and prepare a “consent agenda” of routine matters. The agenda was distributed in advance with
recommendations from the SITE/Leadership Council.
• The General Session voted on SITE/Leadership Council
recommendations
• Approval resulted in policy Policy was added to the Faculty Handbook
• Disapproval resulted in the issue being remanded to the
appropriate Task Force

10. Week # 3 – Training/In-service
• Monthly training was mandatory for teachers,
and focused on curriculum, instruction and
assessment.
• Weekly training was voluntary, but paid at the
contract rate from Title I.
• It was often combined with CSULA classes.
• 100% of the teachers attended, as did many
classified, students, parents and business
partners.

11. Week #4 – Stakeholder Meetings
• The following groups met:
–Departments (Language Arts, Math, Science, PE, History, Electives)
–PTA
–SAC/ELAC
–ASB
–Administrative Team
• In addition to group-specific tasks, the
Stakeholder Groups crafted
recommendations for the SITE/Leadership
Council

12. Task Forces
• Teachers were required to serve on a Task Force
• Classified, students, parents and community
members were invited and usually came
• Task Forces convened as needed when the
SITE/Leadership Council could not come to a
recommendation in the allotted time or when it felt
expertise/research was necessary.
• Task Forces also convened when the General
Session did not approve the SITE/Leadership
Council’s recommendation
• There were four standing Task Forces:
– Curriculum -- Finance
– Programs/Student Activities -- Goverance

13. Exceptions
• It was understood the Administration would act
unilaterally in emergency situations.
• When there was not time for the process, the
Faculty President and Principal crafted “Executive
Recommendations”
• It was understood that the school governance
system had to subordinate to federal, state, county,
and school board policy & regulations.
• Matters remanded to administration by the
SITE/Leadership Council and/or mandated by the
district were enforced unilaterally.

14. Community Involvement
• Community organizations participated in the school
governance.
• Examples:
– Business partners donated $1000s in school supplies, furniture and
computers
– Business partners tutored students & sponsored programs
– USC & UCLA sponsored EL students and took them on field trips.
Native language tutoring in 10 languages was offered on Saturdays.
– A local restaurant hosted the SITE/Leadership Council and provided
free food & beverages
– Students fundraised to present over 1000 new Teddy Bears to people
living with HIV, Cancer, Leukemia & abuse
– Law Enforcement sponsored a club and numerous programs
– Students “adopted grandparents” in the local retirement homes and
convalescent hospitals
– The school sponsored English Language, Citizenship and Parenting
classes in a weekly Parent Institute.
– A network television channel featured the school in nearly a dozen
broadcasts. Similarly, local newspapers published articles, as did the
Kappan.

15. Reflection
+ Student achievement - The system was at times
improved inefficient
+ Student behavior improved - The system was vulnerable to
dramatically reversals
+ The school culture was - Central office conflicts were
superior – low turnover frequent*
+ Parent/community - The Boards of Education felt
involvement was excellent a loss of control*
+The principal’s teaching - An unhealthy rivalry developed
expertise was utilized with other schools
+ Extremely positive union - The system did not survive
relationship superintendent/board changes

16. Immediate Benefit
• By eliminating the Assistant Principal
position we were able to save two teacher
positions.
• Class size remained between 28-33
despite a $250,000 cut in the school’s
budget
• Mobilization of the expertise and
experience of the staff

17. The Unexpected Benefits
• Senior faculty expressed appreciation of the opportunity to
exert leadership without having to leave the classroom.
• An usually high percentage of the assistant principals
became principals.
• Younger faculty had the opportunity to try out school
leadership before committing to a MA in Educational
Administration (many, however, did !)
• Very broad-based leadership--(the Faculty President only
served for 1 quarter)
• The classified staff felt unusually valued and their leadership
contribution was valuable.
• Faculty & staff expressed in surveys this helped them avoid
“burn-out”
• My blood pressure dropped 40 points
• I’m still alive, with the same blood pressure I enjoyed when I
was playing varsity sports in high school & college.