NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It

THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 1

NCPEA 2012 Kansas City, Ideas-based Paper

The Future as We See it: Junior Faculty’s Envisioning of Mid-Century Leadership

Dr. Carol A. Mullen, Dr. Rosemary Papa, Dr. Kimberly Kappler Hewitt, Dr. Daniel Eadens,
Dr. Michael Schwanenberger, Dr. Brad Bizzell, & Dr. Scarlet Chopin

Carol A. Mullen, PhD
Professor and Chair
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Department of Educational Leadership & Cultural Foundations
School of Education Building, Rm. 366A
1300 Spring Garden St.
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
Email: camullen@uncg.edu
Office Phone: (336) 334-9865
Office Fax: (336) 334-4737

Rosemary Papa, EdD
The Del and Jewell Lewis Endowed Chair, Learning Centered Leadership
Professor, Educational Leadership
Northern Arizona University
PO Box 5774
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5774
Email: rosemary.papa@nau.edu
Office Phone: (928) 523-8741
Office Fax: (928) 523-1929

Kimberly Kappler Hewitt, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, kkhewitt@uncg.edu

Daniel Eadens, University of Southern Mississippi, daniel.eadens@usm.edu

Scarlet Lilian Chopin, Northern Arizona University, scarlet.chopin@nau.edu

Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech, bbizzell@vt.edu

Michael Schwanenberger, Northern Arizona University, michael.schwanenberger@nau.edu


Abstract

Seven professors—five junior faculty, guided by senior faculty—reflect on what schools and

universities might look like mid-century. The junior faculty who are from Arizona, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia have in common their transition from school leadership

roles to higher education and strong identity as school leaders. We offer a reflective spin-off on

another group’s conceptual platform that projects the future of the educational leadership field,

backed by data-based trends (i.e., English, Papa, Mullen, & Creighton, 2012).

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore what schools and universities might look like

midcentury to inform educational leadership and leadership preparation. The future of education

is an extremely important subject, whether for rational deliberation or imaginative

contemplation. We are future-minded collaborators in educational leadership programs in higher

education institutions seeking to create momentum around discussion of the future of schools

and universities. Our qualitative study focuses on the institutional contexts of teaching and

learning with respect to educational leadership and, specifically, emergent ideas about the future

of education, however tentative and partial, as well as debatable and changeable.

Conceptual Undergirding

Encouragement for researching trends in education and, by way of extension, the future

of schools and universities is supported by Hackmann and McCarthy’s (2011) groundbreaking

empirical study of educational leadership programs and faculty members’ concerns. Their

conclusions can be interpreted as a call for professors to take back the education profession,

which is being increasingly taken over by such external entities as alternative licensing

providers, and to assume a new, dynamic role of leadership.


It is our attempt to think reflexively and theoretically, with multiple perspectives

grounded in scholar-practitioners’ understandings, about the future as a subject of inquiry. Our

position is that schooling midcentury is not only a legitimate but also a substantive topic. We

stretch to reach outward to the professional world of schools and universities. This attention on

the practical ironically helps us better imagine midcentury leadership and envision possibilities

for education in the future.

In this vein, we are purposefully initiating scholarship that is informative about strong

possibilities that may (or may not) emerge for school leaders and preparation programs. It is our

hope that this work will benefit the educational leadership field, school communities, and

society. We consider generative ideas that scholar-practitioners from educational leadership

programs expressed about the future of education and schools. Building on perspectives from

Educational Leadership at 2050 (English, Papa, Mullen, & Creighton, 2012), we continue the

conversation by bringing into play the worldviews of emergent leaders: junior faculty.

Our framing of the future is deliberately open ended and contemplative, not reductionistic

or conclusive. We also endeavor “to take the future and roll it back to the present” (English et al.,

2012, p. 4). As collaborators on this project, we know that we must be intentional in our thinking

about, and preparing for, the future of education at midcentury for prospective leaders, as well as

for new faculty who will be spearheading this complex work.

Study Methods Used and Data Selected

For this study context, we probed what schools and universities might look like

midcentury and, for this purpose, generated seven types of data:

1. Original blog responses (6,477 words) to the first author’s blog post about midcentury

leadership (387 words)


2. Coauthors’ independent and interdependent analyses of the blog responses

3. Annotated reactions in the margins of the English et al. (2012) book using real-time

collaborative software

4. Situated autobiographical sketches of respondents as background context to blog

responses

5. Electronically generated dialogic data about the original blog posts, book, and other

artifacts

6. Reflective memo written by the five junior faculty authors about their analyses and

intergroup reflections on the raw blog data (11,643 words)

7. A group reflection conceived by the seven researchers on the data analyzed about

implications for the leadership field, preparation programs, and schools (11,976 words)

Social Justice Action Learning Methods

Our focus is geared toward the issues of the future of education and leadership at

midcentury identified from the original blog commentaries and our ensuing dialogic

commentaries (data source numbers 1, 6, and 7).

Seven professors forged technological and dialogic methods reflecting on what schools

and universities might look like midcentury. Senior faculty invited junior faculty to engage

reflectively and conversationally among themselves within a quasi-structured, immersive e-

learning context. In a highly intentional collaborative approach, the junior faculty examined the

topic of the future of education, aspiring to think deeply and meaningfully. The coauthoring

group responded to English et al. (2012) as a way to introduce to them a recent treatment of data-

based trends impacting education and educational leadership, in addition to the data generated

from the first author’s blog post about the future.


The blog was disseminated in 2011 via the open-access website of a professional

educational association. In response to the blog invitation, educational leaders who are junior

faculty working in educational leadership programs from across the U.S. (seven total)—referred

to henceforth as the “blog respondents”—posted extensive commentaries. These lengthy

responses were put into table form. The seven researchers analyzed the complete data using an

increasingly refined team approach (first the junior faculty coauthors analyzed the data

independently and then collaboratively, and then the senior faculty conducted their own analysis,

comparing their results to the former’s results).

More specifically, in this process of extended and refined analysis, the senior researchers

first consolidated the 12 broad categories generated by the coauthors. Then the senior researchers

devised eight (instead of 12) overarching themes, seeking connections among them and to

education and educational leadership. They also sought to make the social justice orientation

reflective in the data analysis more explicit and compelling. Engaging in data analysis with

social justice lenses is supportive of Charmaz’s (2005) view that because data do not speak for

themselves researchers should not suppress making sociopolitical interpretations or openly

advocating for issues they believe need serious attention. Deliberative democratic agendas such

as these assume a stance toward “democratic decision making” (Howe & Ashcraft, 2005, p.

2275) and the participation of stakeholders, which stimulates decisions at different levels that

include key representatives, which in our case involves junior faculty and educational leaders.

In the second phase, which transpired 2 months later in the year 2012, we scheduled a

reintroduction of the senior faculty in their direct work with the coauthors, conversing with them

via Wimba and helping shape better connections among the data sets. In the third phase, we

decided when to work alone as senior researchers, shaping the preliminary work, undergirding it


conceptually and refining the data analysis and ideas. All of these phases were group-based

decisions formulated as intentional events.

For the analysis of the data and subsequent response, we used software designed for text

upload, response, and response tracking (Crocodoc) that offers real-time spaces in which to

respond to documents online. Digital tools spawned by Web 2.0 allow for collaborating

worldwide through document access and live interchanges. Reciprocity is spawned with a digital

presence and commitment. As responders to each other’s reactions, we highlighted our own

responses (e.g., by using different colors) to a selected text (e.g., blog posts).

Blog Analysis and Original Post

The Crocodoc team collaborated in the context of these overarching prompts:

1. What do you think schools and universities might look like midcentury?

2. What trends and forces currently impacting preparation and practice will be strongly

influential by 2050? (Examples include globalization; the decline in the reality of a major

war; a worldwide fresh water crisis amid global warming; the crucial bilateral

relationship—China and the U.S.; the technological transformation of the world; and

continued threats of global terrorism.)

3. What warning signs do we need to heed in the educational leadership field? (Examples

include the resegregation and marketization of the nation’s public schools; the

demonization of teacher unions; the deprofessionalization of educational leadership

preparation; continuing the achievement gap debate, which ignores social inequalities;

the debasement of education degrees and preparation by online diploma mills; the

escalating culture of numbers and continuing cheating scandals; and the erosion of full-

time tenure track faculty positions in leadership preparation programs.)


4. Who are midcentury leaders? (Some salient ideas include leading adult learners;

developing human agency; acknowledging intended skills; encouraging curiosity;

understanding futurity; and exploring imaginativeness.)

5. What sociopolitical conditions will midcentury leaders face? (Examples include the

digital Net Generation; social justice as fairness; consciousness with respect to

appreciating diversity; and the rejection of the Industrial Age teaching model.)

6. What technology zeitgeist will prevail midcentury? (Influencing factors include the new

mood and literacy; proficient technology use; virtual organization as an instrument of

reform; schools empowered with a technology zeitgeist; and the “Learning in

Technology” era.)

7. What are the implications of any such changes for educational leadership preparation,

democratic schooling, and the ethic of public service? (The role and influence of

educational leadership standards and accountability midcentury; breakthroughs in

understanding about leadership, scholarship, and practice; and collaboration and

partnership with schools, school districts, communities, and other entities and countries).

Findings: Frames of Midcentury Issues

Data results tagged to implications for social justice thought and action subsequently

emerged from the Crocodoc team’s analysis of the blog communication. Based on our complete

team’s analysis, seven major frames for thinking about midcentury leadership were identified:

1. sociopolitical–economic nexus with education (categorical subtopics: equity and

democratic principles and sustainability)

2. technology nexus with education

3. 21st-century skills nexus with education (categorical subtopic: innovation)


4. accountability nexus with education (categorical subtopic: health and wellness)

5. globalization nexus with education (categorical subtopic: partnership and collaboration)

6. change nexus with education (categorical subtopic: leadership preparation)

7. leadership preparation nexus with education

While the identified categories overlap, the nexus of sociopolitical–economic issues,

technology, and leadership preparation dominated the majority of blog responses. Due to space

constraints, we discuss only the first two themes (a longer paper is in preparation).

Sociopolitical–Economic Nexus With Education

A sociopolitical–economic nexus with education was the most robust and unwieldy

theme emerging from the blog data. Myriad political, economic, and social issues that directly

and indirectly affect PK–12 and higher education were alluded to or identified. All prompts,

except #5 (technology zeitgeist), elicited responses about the sociopolitical–economic nexus

construct, and all respondents commented on this thought-provoking, combustible issue.

External political forces have a palpable impact on PK–12 schooling and higher

education. The blog respondents believed that leaders must not only recognize this fact but also

be concerned by it. The first decade of the new millennium has been marked by “sweeping

changes” in education as a function of federal legislation, particularly the No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) act. One respondent lamented a negative political climate described as the “great divide

currently existing in the U.S. political system” and yearned for a “more moderate climate that

would allow educational leaders to engage with the community and school boards around

legitimate educational issues rather than ideology and dogma.” Another expressed a similar

concern, believing that “too much of our professional policy and practice is based on tradition

and politics rather than reflective decision making.” While PK–12 education is the source of


much of this concern, there is a sense that “federal and state regulations, along with pay for

performance, are coming to higher education” and that such initiatives are riddled with politics.

The corporate discourse of education is a prevailing and disconcerting issue in

contemporary America that was framed as misguided, threatening, self-serving, and bankrupt.

One respondent declared that “the marketization of education” is responsible for posing “three

significant threats to education in the first half of the 21st century: the decline and potential

demise of public schooling; overly narrow and unresponsive accountability systems; and the

unethical and inappropriate use of data.” Another respondent framed the government’s

educational initiatives as a function of the “tremendous sociopolitical pressure” being exerted.

One source of that pressure is the corporate sector.

This corporate discourse was viewed by all of the respondents as self-serving and not in

the best interests of children and youth in public schools:

With the sly guise of benefitting our students arise corporate education reformers with

self-interest in hand, but the harvest doesn’t benefit the students. They advocate policies

that aid big corporations with profits from public education while diverting attention from

antipoverty economics and breaking teacher unions that prevent their agenda. This is the

biggest warning sign of today.

Fuelling this trend, as one stated, is the “increasing influence and prominence of

multinational corporations” and the “power and influence exercised by corporations and

lobbyists, especially from the financial sector, over government.” While there is recognition of

“education’s direct link to the economy,” resistance is called for in direct response to the

counterproductive “trend demanding a business model responsive to market forces” in leadership

preparation programs, as well as to provide “programming convenient to the consumer whether


or not there is evidence of effectiveness.” Market-driven, corporate pressures are forcing many

principals and other leaders to “market themselves and their schools” without concern for

relevance or need. On a more neutral level, this “marketing” was viewed as a potential form of

advocacy that has an increasingly important role for educational leaders, as described later.

Threats to and assaults on public education are commonplace and disconcerting. One

individual indicted corporate reformers for promoting a sense of crisis and attacking public

education to promote their own agenda: “Under the guise of a national education crisis, the

legitimacy and utility of public schooling will continue to be challenged, and public schooling

itself will be threatened.” Another decried the “public relations assault on public education.”

Attempts to destroy teachers unions and significant budget cuts also threaten the very integrity of

public education, let alone its sustainability. These trends require that educational leaders, en

masse, become advocates for education and “articulate to the public the value and critical role of

public education in maintaining democratic ideals.”

Leaders must be more active in the political arena and as articulate advocates of public

education. Gone are the days when educational leaders’ concerns lay entirely within their

campus. Instead, the role of educational leaders “will continue to seep into more sociopolitical

responsibilities, expanding their scope beyond the school building.” With greater and force,

“educational leaders must be actively engaged, expert participants in national policy debates”

and stand up for what they believe is just and appropriate. Midcentury educators must position

themselves to impact educational legislation and policy and transform leaders into contributors to

and collaborators on the policy they believe needs to shape their contexts.

The requirement that future leaders be “politically active and knowledgeable about the

political arena” has deep implications for leadership preparation programs. Leadership


preparation faculty must reposition ourselves (not be repositioned) toward “cultivating—in our

students and ourselves—an activist orientation.”

This theme has strong links to globalization. Globalization, as a trend, is a powerful

sociopolitical–economic issue affecting American education. At the same time, American

sociopolitical–economic issues tend to be global in scope, not particular to the U.S. Thinking

about issues as “American” is a provincial stance that excludes non-U.S. citizens and cultures

from equal opportunities in life. Globalization as a category is discussed later in this section.

Technology Nexus With Education

Not surprisingly, all respondents identified technology as a common aspect of change in

leadership by midcentury. However, they did not make explicit connections to the sociopolitical–

economic domain, although all respondents provided lengthy responses to both prompts. Not

unlike the education literature itself, it is as though educational leaders may still be struggling to

forge deep connections between sociocultural and technology issues, at least at the level of

critical consciousness. To provoke thought on this disconnect, we placed technology here,

juxtaposed to the sociopolitical–economic theme.

Some respondents seemed nostalgic about the relatively fast evolution of technology in

their lifetimes, recalling episodic changes leading to the digitization of their work:

There is no doubt that computers have revolutionized education. I remember when

computers were introduced in my high school back in the 1980s—they were novelty

items. I used my first computer to complete a typing tutorial and a typewriter to complete

my term papers. By the end of college, around 1990, I had advanced to using my

computer rather than my typewriter for word-processing. I remember my first email

account, established in 1997, because it was required for enrollment in my doctoral


program. Now, in 2011, I am an education research analyst and a distance-learning

faculty member who virtually lives on the computer, pun intended.

As we progress toward the year 2050, technology will proliferate in some unexpected

forms as new markets and ways of thinking evolve (see Tareilo & Bizzell, 2012). The

respondents believe that they are witnessing online and virtual learning as one of the fastest

growing fields in education. By midcentury, online learning as currently known will be outdated

and virtual learning will have greater presence and a new definition.

In higher education as well as in many PK–12 school districts, students “in” our classes

may be located in other parts of the nation or world. Our students will desire immediacy and use

three-dimensional learning tools and hologram technology. They will be able to “meet” with one

another and interact as if they were in the same room. Sophisticated translation technology will

allow students to be taught in their native tongues, for Spanish as a primary language in the U.S.

to gain wide acceptance, and for English-only speakers to fully participate in such activities as

Spanish-speaking podcasts. The influence of technology on classrooms will become more

prevalent, allowing students and teachers to view each other via webcast. All information will be

accessible and available for use through some type of electronic device.

As technology advances, the types of curriculum offered will be drastically changed,

along with instructional strategies and modalities. “Metaverses, such as Second Life [software

that allows users to create virtual objects and digitally interact within an online world], will grow

in sophistication. Educators will develop ways to incorporate the potential of the virtual

dimension to provide currently unimaginable opportunities” for learning. Leadership preparation

and professional development interventions will need to prepare faculties for significant

adaptation as high-quality teacher practitioners. As one respondent shared,


I predict that by 2050, successful educators, especially school leaders, will be highly

skilled research-practitioners. Our leadership preparation and practice must emphasize

research-based, innovative, cost-effective educational approaches. Our preparation

programs should offer more coursework in relevant 2011–2050 topics, such as

assessment and data systems, information technology, qualitative and quantitative

inquiry, economics, finance, and program evaluation. Courses centered on these topics

should explore the philosophy and ideology reflected in professional policy and practice.

Respondents referred to the “many trends and forces currently impacting preparation and

practice” that they think will be strongly influential by 2050. One drew particular attention to the

“the revolutionary effects of the information age as the most dramatic because they undergird

most of these trends in education,” predicting continuation of these effects as “a catalyst for

change in educational policy and practice.” Examples given by the respondent pool included “the

green movement, STEM, evidence-based practice, response to intervention, differentiated

instruction, and technology-based education.”

The blog respondents and the coauthors all expressed concern that while education has

been transformed in many ways since the first computer, much of the U.S. schooling system was

designed during the industrial period. Perhaps consequently,

too much of the nation’s professional policy and practice is based on tradition or politics

rather than reflective, data-based decision making. Examples of outdated practices

abound, such as the agrarian school calendar, the continued chronological grouping of

learners, and the emphasis on traditional lecture methodologies. …

Discussion


This data-based analysis leads us to ask, how might leadership preparation better integrate

the pressing priorities among the prevalent issues previously raised? We are more aware that as

we prepare leaders of tomorrow, these priorities will need to be much better addressed and

connections among them sought and made. We recognize that these issues need to be integrated

more thoughtfully into how we prepare leaders and how future professors might develop

prospective leaders. Thus a question we are posing to the field is, how might faculty leaders

better integrate sociopolitical issues, in particular, with other prevalent changes, such as in the

domains of technology and accountability, with positive momentum for leadership preparation?

We think that our leadership preparation programs are overly course based, as opposed to

having a larger program vision. The overuse of temporary staff (e.g., adjuncts) is only part of this

problem. Full-time faculty generally have much more investment in a total-program approach to

preparing school leaders, so we are advocating for more full-time faculty hires of scholar-

practitioners in programs. To illustrate the problem, one of us teaches a course on the

organization and management of schools that is not integrated as part of a coherent program. In

fact, it is treated as a large bushel that can be stuffed with content—it contains all the school

personnel and school finance topics to be taught in the program, in addition to all the content and

standards required of higher education accrediting bodies in terms of what skills and

competencies must be demonstrated in courses. A major challenge that lies ahead is how to

accomplish this curricular goal with fewer full-time instructional faculty covering more of the

core course content and under the duress of reduced resources and budgets.

Full-time faculty must be at the helm to help ensure that students have a high-quality,

coherent education. Frequently in higher education, we write and talk about collaboration and

shared planning and coteaching, but in reality, we tend to work in fiefdoms and silos. The degree


to which we can try to overcome our professional isolation is crucial for the future of leadership

preparation. For example, two of us belong to a faculty professional learning community that is

the first one in our higher education department’s 35-plus-year history. We have been wondering

why it has taken so long to come together collaboratively and work on our practice even though

this is the kind of community-building we constantly encourage principals and teachers to do. In

the future, faculty will want to avoid living out such ironies by acting on our own messages.

Another tension we see is that while many educational leadership students are seeking

online learning options and entire programs delivered at a distance, leaders, including some state

superintendents, think that quality in higher education requires being face-to-face (f2f).

Consequently, many programs across the U.S. function as hybrid systems to accommodate, in

particular, f2f contact during summer months. Such gains enable part-time students who work

full time in schools and districts to make sociopolitical connections and career-based political

connections. This hybrid form may continue, with much more emphasis on technology use,

alternative scheduling, and creative options for f2f learning. A goal will be to make courses more

effective online with vastly improved tools amenable to transcontinental online platforms.

Sociopolitical conditions of inclusiveness also lead us to examine leadership preparation

in terms of nontraditional leadership candidates. Tapping broader pools, notably indigenous

populations who do not look the part or act in ways consistent with status quo expectations, will

need to occur for equitable education to be modeled. Shah (2010) writes of her contextualized

work with colleges in Pakistan that “there is a need to recognize that people from diverse

philosophical, ideological and faith backgrounds conceive and perceive educational leadership

differently, particularly across the gender divide, drawing upon their beliefs, values and


knowledge sources” (p. 28). We will need to turn to leaders who are ideologically diverse,

approach our field differently, and can infuse new ideas.

Conclusion

Canoeing is a metaphor for articulating a vision of the future. Reflecting on learning to

whitewater paddle, a veteran paddler gave these instructions for approaching a Class 4 rapid

called Lesser Wesser on the Nantahala River: “Head for the V to the right of that rock, then think

left. Don’t paddle left or turn left. Just think left.” The instructor explained that if you turn left or

paddle left, you would undoubtedly hit the rapid wrong and end up “in the drink.” However,

when you think left on the river, your body shifts and nudges the canoe just enough to slip into

the rapids in the correct spot. When we think left, we can hit the rapid just right.

Just by thinking toward something, we unconsciously move in that direction, whether we

desire to or not. This is fundamentally the case for leadership and change as well. Whether we

intentionally and consciously work toward a certain future by thinking about it—by expecting to

head in that direction—we do so in subtle but perhaps profound ways. From this perspective, the

future is what we think it will be. Santayana’s (1905/1998) adage, “Those who cannot remember

the past are condemned to repeat it” (p. 406) becomes “those who do not critically analyze their

sense of the future will be condemned to produce it.”

We believe that we can influence our futures as junior and senior collaborators in higher

education. We believe that the ideas we have described are crucial for the future of leadership

preparation, and we recognize that we may be unintentionally heading in these directions for

better or worse. This, for us, is a call to be reflective, aware, and intentional about where we

believe educational leadership preparation is heading and where we believe it should be heading.

It might very well be the case that we do not endorse where we think that educational leadership


preparation is heading but are nevertheless acting in ways that promote the very future that we

eschew. We encourage our readers to envision midcentury leadership on their own terms and in

their own way. We have dialogued about the personal and professional benefits that have

occurred for us in taking on this challenge and end by sharing these.

References

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social

justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050:

Conjectures, challenges and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Hackmann, D. G., & McCarthy, M. M. (2011). At a crossroads: The educational leadership

professoriate in the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Howe, K. R., & Ashcraft, C. (2005). Deliberative democratic evaluation: Successes and

limitations of an evaluation of school choice. Teachers College Record, 107(10), 2274–

2297.

Santayana, G. (1905/1998). The life of reason (Vol. I). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Second Life. [Online Metaverse software]. San Francisco, CA: Linden Research.

Shah, S. J. A. (2010). Re-thinking educational leadership: Exploring the impact of cultural and

belief systems. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice,

13(1), 27–44.

Tareilo, J., & Bizzell, B. (Eds.). (2012). NCPEA handbook of online instruction and programs in

education leadership. Rice University Connexions collections: NCPEA Press. Retrieved

from http://my.qoop.com

NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (18)

Similar a NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It

Similar a NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It (20)

Último

Último (20)

NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It