0.5 Why is school leadership preparation so complex  (Page 2/11)

We shall not flag or fail, we shall go to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas andoceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. (p.77).

When Arthur Levine of Teacher’s College and other critics attacked leadership education programs, this writerresponded this way (Hoyle, 2005):

University preparation of school principals and superintendents has never been better. Based on indicators ofacademic achievement, such as entrance exams, grade point averages, and ethnic and gender diversity, the talent pool of graduatestudents in educational administration improves each decade. (p. 1)

When Gerald Anderson became superintendent of the Brazosport, Texas School district, he found a high failure anddropout rate among children of color and poverty. Driven by his Marine pilot determination and armed with the knowledge of masterylearning gained in doctoral studies and belief that all kids can learn, Anderson added training in the Edwards Deming’s Quality Improvement strategies and within three years turned the districtinto a national success story. His belief that all students can learn led to a hard stance with teachers who thought otherwise. Hetold his entire staff and community that the district will make“no excuses”for failing to educate every child in Brazosport. Thus, a district wide effort was soon underway to diagnose every student interms of prior learning, provide quality teaching and testing strategies, re-teach and re-test, and provide each student time tomaster the content. He and his staff created eight strategies that became a model for hundreds of other school districts faced withhigh failure rates among minority and poor children and youth.Other superintendents face similar overwhelming odds that Anderson faced but appear to accept the community norms that some studentswill never succeed due family history, cultural barriers, or lack of school funding to meet the needs of all students--especiallythose most difficult to teach. Thus, some individuals in leadership positions fail to act on their“inner strength”of leadership during times of crisis. We witness some of these leadership lapsesby individuals with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other national and state political figures when hurricanes Katrinaand Rita slammed into Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi coasts. Why do some leaders find that inner strength to act and others wait forsomeone or some group to solve the problems for them? These mysteries of leadership continue to elude the most curiousleadership scholars and search teams assisting organizations in finding the right person or persons to lead as the world becomesmore complex and competitive.

Changing Definitions of Leadership

Leadership definitions are more plentiful than those who write about the topic. Warren Bennis indicated thatleadership is like beauty, difficult to define, but obvious to. Each semester in my organizational leadership class, I ask studentsto define leadership. If 15 graduate students respond, I get 15 different definitions. Definitions of leadership have evolved overtime. After the devastating World Wars I and II, America was regaining its industrial might and leaders of industry, education,and national policy development assumed a posture of aggressive top-down control. The leadership literature of the period of1950-1970 centered on influencing people to do what you want them to do or, managing others to follow you in completing a project,winning a battle, or creating a new product. These definitions were hangovers from the“great man”theories of leadership that recalled powerful individuals leading the industrial revolution and militarycampaigns emphasizing the anthropomorphic concepts of physical prowess and personalities of the powerful. Influential figures ofthe early 20th century, i. e., Andrew Carnegie, Cornellus Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and other prominent land ownersand bankers created the image of what leaders did in terms of exercising power and controlling the industrial, financial,political, and military sectors of American life. This image of what leaders do was influenced by the writings of Woodrow Wilson,Fredrick Taylor, Max Weber, Herbert Simon, Raymond Callahan and others who led in the creation of the science of administration andmanagement primarily viewed leaders as managers of people and things to accomplish a common goal of efficiency, turn a profit,and plan ways to be more productive. According to Bertram Gross (1964), French Industrialist Henri Fayol (1841-1925) added to thetrend toward scientific management by defining administrative leadership as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, andcontrolling. These terms have come to be known as“Fayol’s Elements”which best defined leadership in the early to mid-twentieth century. Fayol’s Elements and the definitions are as follows: