Author: Alan Jones

How would a leader of content knowledge solve the problem of high Hispanic dropout rates in a high school?

The typical response of most school administrators to an achievement problem in their school is to adopt a program. The program will usually include several one-day workshops led by a well-known guru in the field. The staff would receive notice of their involvement in the program at an opening day workshop. The announcement of the new program would be accompanied by a brief power-point presentation of what the program entails and the schedule for the in-service workshops.  Because the agenda for the opening day workshop is jammed with managerial matters, there is little time to explain to the staff the rationale for the program or the theories, ideas, and practices that govern the program. One year later when achievement gains have failed to materialize school administrators will blame teachers for failing to “buy into” the new program. Administrators who approach instructional change in the mode of “shoot first and then aim” do not have much time for recriminations because it is a new year and time for a new program.

            A leader of content knowledge, however, would approach an instructional problem quite differently. There would be no grand announcement of a program or a schedule to launch the faculty into action, but rather a series of mini-presentations that would begin with factual representations of the problem and then, as the year progressed, the communication of an agenda in the form of an instructional story that is told over and over again in faculty meetings, in school board meetings, in meetings with district personnel, and most importantly in the daily hallway and classroom conversations with teachers, students, and support personnel. The instructional story would always be composed of the facts of the problem, the emotional toll the problem is taking on students, parents, and teachers, and possible solutions for the problem. The instructional story would always be delivered orally so audiences feel the seriousness, passion, and purposefulness of the leader of content knowledge. The power of the instructional story does not lie in the emotional force of the story alone, however, but ultimately in the substance of the story—a philosophy of education—that weaves theories, ideas, and the practice of curriculum and instruction into the everyday routines and varied understandings of the school community she leads. In the case of high Hispanic dropout rates, the story might look something like this:

For the last five years one-third of the Hispanic students who begin in our school will not walk across the stage four years later. All of us sitting in this auditorium have experienced the pain of students and parents who have been drawn into the life changing decision to quit high school —it is like a death without a funeral. Many of you have stopped me in the hallway, dropped into my office, or cornered me in the parking lot to tell me a story of one your best Hispanic students who decided to dropout of school. Let me interject that I truly appreciate all the efforts this faculty is making to support students whose native language and immigrant status has made it difficult for our new arrivals to do well in school.

 Of particular concern to me is the high number of Hispanic students who come to us from good high schools in Mexico and still fail to graduate. In talking with students, parents, and colleagues in districts with similar populations it appears that highly educated Hispanic students drop out of school because of their frustration in basic skills classes where they feel stuck because of their inability to speak English. If I placed myself in a similar position I can see where I would become bored in courses where I was not challenged and where I felt I was going nowhere. The research on the problem of high dropout rates among Hispanic students is all over the place. Some researchers feel that the solution lies in the community; some feel that the solution lies with better ESL/bilingual programs; some feel that more attention needs to be paid to employing more Hispanic teachers. As you know, over the last five years we have implemented a number of changes in our school to address each of these approaches to the problem with limited success.

Recently, there have been several writers who focused on the problem of how to increase the retention rate of academically talented Hispanic students. Again, the solutions offered by researchers are all over the map, but a common theme that emerges from effective programs for second language learners is the inclusion of classes, especially advanced classes, that are conducted in the native language. Some of you have expressed to me concerns about not emphasizing the importance of learning English. I agree with this concern. I feel this concern should be an important part of the conversations we will be having this year about how best to address the instructional needs of Hispanic students who are academically prepared to do well in advanced classes in mathematics and science.

            The construction of this instructional story by the leader of content knowledge would begin a year or more before any public pronouncements were uttered about the problem. That year would become a period of private study of the problem. The leader of content knowledge would seek out experts in the field who have studied and written about the problem of high Hispanic dropout rates. Based on these conversations, the leader of content knowledge would select monographs and research articles that represent a continuum of theories, ideas, and practices in the field. She would then allocate time to read about the problem, talk about the problem with experts in the field, and finally to begin to run her thoughts by staff members most affected by the problem.

            The goal of this personal journey for the leader of content knowledge is to allocate the necessary time to become immersed in the theories, ideas, and practices associated with the problem and, then, to seek out as many opportunities as possible to translate the theories, ideas, and practices from the professional literature into the everyday vocabulary, metaphors, analogies, and personal histories of the teachers they work with. The eventual success of the instructional story will depend on how well the leader of content knowledge has woven the theories and ideas from the professional literature into the everyday realities of classroom practice and, most importantly, how well the story stands up to “competing counterstories” (Gardner, 1995) of staff members. In the case of Spanish speaking content classes (science, social studies, mathematics) the instructional story would have to withstand the very powerful counterstory of the absolute duty of schools to teach recently arrived immigrants English as quickly as possible and to accomplish this moral and pedagogical function in classes where the recently arrived immigrant is totally immersed in English speaking classes.

            What makes the personal and public journeys of the leader of content knowledge so vital to the process of solving an instructional problem is the personal understandings that come with the private study of the problem and with these understandings the development of necessary knowledge to define the problem for the staff, to explain an instructional framework that would address the problem, and to relate the components of the instructional framework to the everyday realities of classroom teaching. In the case of high Hispanic dropout rates, the leader of content knowledge has defined the problem—-the dropping out of high achieving Hispanic students who do not have access to higher level math and science classes; she has proposed a solution for the problem—the creation of advanced classes in mathematics and science that are taught in Spanish; she has identified indicators of success—the graduation rates of high achieving Hispanic students. The knowledge base developed during the personal and private journeys serve also as a solid foundation for confronting the “little” problems and competing counterstories (Gardner, 1995) that will emerge during the implementation of upper level content classes taught in Spanish.

            The final guarantee, however, of the fulfillment of the goals and strategies of an instructional story is the day-to-day discussions and decisions that surface, situation-by-situation, as teachers work to develop curricular and instructional strategies for teaching advanced content classes in Spanish. The personal and private journey would reveal in which situations the leader of content knowledge should become involved. In the case of teaching advanced content classes in a second language, the challenge that will confront teachers in the program is finding materials in the second language—textbooks, lab activities, assessment instruments, technology applications—and personnel that possess a facility with the second language to teach the class and translate the materials. The ideal strategy for this instructional problem is the employment of Spanish speaking teachers who are certified in mathematics and science. Knowing this, the leader of content knowledge would become very much involved in the recruitment and employment of prospective teachers —which would include contacting department chairpersons of science and mathematics at universities with significant Hispanic populations; mentoring promising Hispanic students in these departments; and developing school and district incentives that would attract these candidates to their school.

            The other situation that the leader of content knowledge must become a part of is the lesson planning process. What this means operationally is the development of a team format that will allow teachers in the program to collaborate on lessons and a process for requesting the materials and intellectual resources they will need to create lessons, materials, and assessments in Spanish. While teachers are becoming acclimated to their new assignments the leader of content knowledge would have found ways to subtly become an accepted member of the planning team. Their role on the team is part manager of resources and logistics, part cheerleader, and part keeper of the faith in the philosophical assumptions guiding the change initiative. In every situation where teachers come together to change what they do in classrooms, the leader of content knowledge plays the all important role of establishing an intellectual climate where teachers feel free to create the details of classroom instruction and at the same time maintaining the boundaries for the faithful adherence to the theories, ideas, and practices that have been woven together to form a school’s response to the instructional challenge of the day.

The Choice for Educational Administrators

            A recent report (HSSE, 2005) on student satisfaction with their school experience gives voice to John Goodlad’s (1984) observation over twenty years ago that schools are places where students have become emotionally deadened by the routines of schooling and intellectually morbid by an institutional curriculum that prizes completion of work rather than understanding and reflection. Faced with these contemporary realities of schooling in America and the direction where the school reform literature is pointing, school administrators have three choices: they can retreat to their office; they can dance around the classroom (administrators-as-managers); or they can enter the classroom as leaders of content knowledge. Administrators who choose to enter the classroom will truly begin a difficult private and public journey into teaching and learning —but it will be a journey that has the only real opportunity to fully develop the creativity, intelligence, and the competence of our next generation of children.

            The final journey a leader of content knowledge must undergo is to provide consistency, concentration, and meaning within the day-to-day uncertainties of a change initiative. At this critical juncture in the implementation process, administrators-as-managers assume the role of distant observer and transmitter of orders. Without a personal framework for understanding the instructional implications of a change initiative or specific knowledge about the theories, ideas, and practices that govern the change initiative, the manager can do little else but inspect and expect.

            The leaders of content knowledge, however, do not view a change initiative through binoculars but rather find avenues to insert themselves directly into the change initiative. The leaders of content knowledge will assume a number of different roles outside the formal positions in the school hierarchy— a department chairperson, a member of behavior disorder team, a member of a team to study interdisciplinary studies—to directly experience the uncertainties that accompany any complex social experiment.  The dual role of administrator and leader of content knowledge affords the administrator with the opportunity to make the day-to-day adjustments to variables in a new program that are not working as planned. Knowledge of the instructional components of a change initiative provides the leader of content knowledge with the opportunity to meaningfully participate in an ongoing dialogue with faculty on perceptions and priorities of the program. Most importantly, the leader of content knowledge understands the subtle changes that must occur in a change initiative that evolve out of staff insights —what the literature calls tacit knowledge— about what is working and what is not working in the program.

            The final and most important task of a leader of content knowledge is to leave the situation in good hands —or what the literature now calls, “distributed leadership” (Spillane, et al 2001).  Being embedded in the day-to-day operations of the instructional improvement initiative provides the leader of content knowledge with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate the leadership potential of those most involved in the change effort. When working shoulder-to-shoulder with teachers and other staff members the leader of content knowledge can accurately assess what a potential teacher leader understands of the theories, ideas, and practices associated with the change initiative, her ability to influence her colleagues to stay the course, and her commitment to the goals of the change initiative. The underlying goal of working closely with prospective teacher leaders is to assist in the development of a knowledge base and interpersonal skills to institutionalize the strategies teachers and administrators have agreed upon. The most satisfying part of the situational journey are the weekly conversations with teachers, department chairpersons, and support staff who have assumed the mantle of leader of content knowledge and knowing that it is safe to move on to the next instructional challenge.

The Journey Never Ends

            The characteristic that distinguishes administrators-as-managers and leaders of content knowledge is evidenced in the way the change initiative culminates. Administrators-as-managers approach the change initiative process as a series of tasks which the supervisor in charge checks off one-by-one. The final “check-off” might be a completed budget, a new room configuration, the administration of a test, or the filing of a report.

            Leaders of content knowledge, on the other hand, understand that changing the hearts and minds of those most directly working with children requires a process in which teachers are immersed in learning environments and conversational forums where they are able to interact with colleagues and mentors about the theories, ideas, and practices they are being asked to apply in their classrooms. Teachers are willing to change very deeply held beliefs and practices about teaching and learning if the change makes sense to them, if they perceive a long-term commitment by an administrator to the change initiative, and if they receive proper support throughout the change process. So, for the leader of content knowledge the journey never ends. One situation leads to another situation.

            Although it would appear that the personal journey of a leader of content knowledge is primarily a contemplative process that proceeds at a distance from the instructional problem under consideration, the ultimate success to solving an instructional problem and building a consensus for the solution demands that the leader of content knowledge spend considerable time thinking about how to implement a response to the instructional problem. Teachers will resist any change initiative that is high on ends and low on means. Teachers are, and will always be, pragmatists—they want to know what will work on Monday morning. Leaders of content knowledge must be able to provide teachers with a framework that not only explains why something will work, but the kinds of classroom particulars that make things work. In other words the personal journey informs the public journey and the public journey continually informs the personal journey.

            Administrators-as-managers approach implementation as a problem of capacity —the capacity to fund, to schedule, to purchase, to employ, to assign, and to assess. Leaders of content knowledge approach implementation as a problem of teaching and learning —knowing about the subject matter; knowing about how children learn the subject matter; knowing about how teachers can assist students in learning the subject matter; and knowing how to hold teachers accountable for changing their practices to accommodate new theories, ideas, and practices.

            When thinking about the implementation of an instructional change initiative, the leader of content knowledge first begins with a picture of what should be happening in the classroom. When this picture is clear to the educational leader, then, almost simultaneously, the leader executes the managerial steps that will align the leader’s vision with the appropriate resources and personnel. A staff, for example, may reach consensus on the establishment of a personalized learning environment that catered to the learning styles and interests for a group of disaffected students who are failing all of their subjects and not attending school. The role of the leader of content knowledge in the design process is to maintain a faithful commitment to the learning principles developed during the “personal journey” and then to provide the logistical and monetary support to accomplish the goals of the program. Throughout the implementation process, as with all other instructional improvement efforts, the leader of content knowledge must assume responsibility for both providing the proper mix of resources for furthering the change initiative and creating an environment where there is constant dialogue about the program’s response to the fundamental questions of learning.

            The foundation of leadership content knowledge is the development of a framework for thinking about emerging instructional challenges. Frameworks are not a collection of programs or random pieces of information associated with an instructional program. Rather they are “…a set of interrelated programs for students and staff that are guided by a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning climate and are pursued over a sustained period” (Newmann, et al  2001, p. 299). A “common framework” that would encompass most change initiatives in schools and would address most of the instructional problems that confront teachers on a daily basis are the fundamental questions of schooling:

• How do children learn?
• What knowledge is of most worth?
• How should we teach children?
• How should we organize subject matter?
• How should we assess what students understand?

            When encountering an instructional problem the educational leader’s private challenge, which eventually becomes a public challenge, is to develop a coherent framework for each of the fundamental questions of schooling in relation to the instructional problem to be solved. Coherence is key because teachers become very frustrated when they are asked to apply a little of this theory, some of those ideas, and a few of these practices. Teachers are much more open to an instructional improvement initiative if the leader helps them as they connect the dots in implementing a change, i.e., theories agree with ideas, ideas agree with actions, actions agree with practices. The most pervasive impediment to instructional improvement is the lack of a coherent framework for understanding the causes and possible solutions for an instructional problem.

            The construction of a coherent response to the fundamental questions of schooling is the most difficult part of the instructional improvement process. In the messy world of schooling there will always be a continuum of theories, ideas, and practices for each fundamental question —each theory, idea, or practice vying to influence the direction and content of the instructional change imitative. B. F. Skinner, for example, would respond to the question of what knowledge is of most worth and how to organize subject matter far differently than John Dewey. Secondly, each instructional problem which arises brings with it particular circumstances that do not play well to grand theories of learning, knowledge, teaching, organization, and assessment. The first journey, then, for the leader of content knowledge, is a private one in which the educational leader finds opportunities to mentally wander back and forth between the fundamental questions of schooling and the theories and practices governing the instructional problem. Throughout this personal journey, the wanderings between the world of theory and the world of practice would be continually informed by the research in the area, talks with experts, and ongoing discussions with those staff members most affected by the instructional problem. Joseph Schwab (1978) termed such a process the “Arts of the Eclectic.”What Schwab meant by the “Arts of the Eclectic” is the proposition that the possessor of only one theory or a series of like-minded theories will experience the “vice of tunnel vision” in a world of “radical pluralism” (Schwab, 1978, p. 333). Administrators who practice the “Arts of the Eclectic” become experts in the art of weaving together loosely-coupled systems of theories, ideas, and practices that will establish a recognizable mosaic of core values and organizational aims into a perfect synthesis of the “how” and the “what” of schooling.

            The “final resolution” to the instructional problem, then, is often inelegant, but strikes a delicate balance between theory, technique, and the social context of the problem. Some seasoned school administrators might view the personal journey as a huge waste of time. The management mentality of those school leaders who thrive on putting fires out is to jump into the decision-making stage as quickly as possible —“first shoot, then aim.”

            The profound insight of Stein and Nelson’s (2003) construct of “leadership content knowledge,” is the essential role that subject matter knowledge plays in the ongoing dialogue between an instructional leader and his or her staff over an instructional problem. Instructional leaders gain legitimacy in the eyes of teachers and are more likely to be invited into discussions about instructional problems when the administrator demonstrates an understanding of the frameworks, theories, and ideas that govern a content or skill domain. The invitation to discuss an instructional problem provides the leader of content knowledge with the opening to formulate, along with the teachers, a coherent approach to understanding and acting upon an instructional problem and the development of common responses to the multitude of big and little problems that evolve out of any instructional change effort. The challenge in each of these conversations is to subtly weave into each discussion a blend of theories, ideas, and practices that reflect a coherent instructional response to the fundamental questions of schooling and an instructional framework that builds a bridge between the remote world of theory and the immediate world of the classroom.

            A trait of all these discussions are those healthy disagreements over a proposed system of theories, ideas, and practices that can be expected when teachers and administrators come together to discuss the messy world of the classroom practice. Those educational leaders who have skipped the “personal journey” will view these interchanges with those in the trenches as disagreeable and situations to avoid rather than opportunities to influence the direction of the conversation and the thinking of the participants in the discussion. If the educational leader has taken the time to wrestle with the problem privately—the personal journey—the leader is equipped to nudge the staff closer to the theories, ideas, and practices they are proposing. To be sure the particulars of any instructional problem—the instructional preparation of the staff, the available resources, and the population to be served will always result in solutions that move the continuum of theories, ideas, and practices a bit farther from an ideal, but ultimately the staff will move towards a favored theory or practice if the discussion is navigated by an educational leader who has “prepared relentlessly” (Giuliani, 2002) for the change initiative.

            Leaders of content knowledge are not philosopher kings whose personal search for meaning will result in an idealized realization of what is true, good, and beautiful. Rather the personal journey of a leader of content knowledge provides a process for understanding what is not known about teaching and learning and a Socratic habit of questioning conventional assumptions about teaching and learning in the journey towards a common framework for solving an instructional problem.

            For the last decade policy makers and boards of education have been mandating and searching for leaders who are knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction. The name given to these school administrators is “instructional leaders.” The problem that has plagued the literature on instructional leadership is how policy makers and boards of education interpret this role. The public has largely viewed the role of instructional leader as a school administrator who effectively manages test driven curricular and instructional programs rather than assuming a leadership role in challenging the “assign/assess” (Tharp, 1993, p. 270) mode of instruction that pervades our schooling system in the United States. The essential difference between the two roles rests with their orientation towards the means and ends of an organization. Managers are rewarded for planning, directing and monitoring what is already in place and for guiding a process of continuous improvement.

            Leaders, on the other hand, assume responsibility for what the literature calls “purposing”— the ability to create the capacity, the vocabulary, and the organizational configuration for the aims of the organization to be realized in the daily functions of employees.

            While the private sector has wholeheartedly embraced the distinction between managers and leaders and are willing to offer lucrative rewards for leadership, school districts, in the words of Sergiovanni (2005), continue to be “overmanaged and underled.”

            Although governmental bodies are calling for instructional leaders to direct our schools, a cursory view of what administrators do on a daily basis reveals why the management function becomes a priority for school administrators. Parents, school boards, and students expect that their schools will operate effectively and efficiently —the buses will run on time, the bathrooms will be clean, all students will have correct schedules at the beginning of the school year, grades will be issued on time and yes, the football field will be properly lined for the Friday night game. Along with the public expectation for well-run schools, school administrators would freely admit that one could feel good about seeing and being a part of the very tangible outcomes of a well-run school.

            The same expectation for performance and satisfaction for a job well done cannot be said about the role of instructional leaders. School administrators who venture into the realm of curriculum and instruction are confronted with a formidable set of institutional, cultural, and political obstacles that will never be fully resolved, are messy to mediate, and will exert a heavy toll on those who challenge the prevailing norms of schooling in America.

            Not only must the educational leader confront public and institutional norms that are hostile to change, but also, he or she will confront these unfriendly forces with little or no training in the knowledge and skills necessary to become an instructional leader. A recent study of programs in educational leadership found that the design and implementation of the curriculum for most educational leadership programs continues to support the role of manager and provides little, if any, content regarding the kinds of knowledge and skills necessary to lead a school instructionally. The report implies that the process of becoming an instructional leader will require a highly personal journey with little assistance from institutional approaches to teaching educational administration (Levine, 2005).

            Having said that, the literature on organizational leadership is replete with examples of women and men who have orchestrated fundamental changes in the direction and the day-to-day operations of the organizations they lead. Although the portraits of these individuals exhibit a wide range of personality types, working styles, and experiences, the common attribute these leaders possess is a laser-like focus on what their organization ought to be doing and an ability to transform the ought of the organization into the everyday functions of their employees (Drucker, 2006).

            The other quality that sets these leaders apart from others in the field is their personal commitment to becoming students of their industry, whatever it might be. This quality is a dramatic departure from past organizational literature that portrayed the ideal CEO as one who had been trained in professional management theories and industrial psychology and could move easily between different kinds of businesses.

            Professional management approaches to leadership were founded on the belief that there is a set of generic knowledge and skills in “planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting” that could be applied to any organization (Sergiovanni, 2005, p. 12). What industry learned a decade ago and unfortunately what recent national disasters have demonstrated is the critical importance of expert knowledge in establishing the direction of an organization and in the day-to-day decisions that must be made to implement that direction.

            In the field of education, the quality of expert knowledge has recently been termed in the literature as, “Leadership Content Knowledge” (Stein & Nelson, 2005). This “new construct” originated with Lee Schulman’s (1986) concept of “pedagogical content knowledge.” Both concepts recognize Dewey’s (1902/1990) observation that there is a significant difference between knowing a subject and teaching a subject. What is insightful about “Leadership Content Knowledge,” is the expectation that a school leader not only be able to manage the instructional change, but more importantly, take responsibility for “…some degree of understanding of the various subject matters under their purview,” (Stein & Nelson, 2005, p. 424) so they can have a “…grasp on where expertise resides in relation to particular tasks and then to arrange environments that make interactive learning possible” (Stein & Nelson, 2005, p. 426).

            The leader of content knowledge is expected to carry on simultaneously the management function of instructional improvement —the old instructional leadership role— and the teaching function of instructional improvement —which requires that the educational leader insert themselves into the trenches of an instructional improvement effort and confront the day-to-day problems of “how to teach the subject matter, and how students learn the subject matter” (Stein & Nelson, 2005, p. 426).

            What is missing from this new construct of “administrators-as-teachers” (Stein & Nelson, 2005, p. 426) are concrete examples of how an administrator transforms himself or herself from their traditional role as an instructional leader to a leader of content knowledge. There are no institutional approaches to becoming a leader of content knowledge and, even if there were, the highly contextual nature of any instructional improvement would defy efforts to create a curriculum for becoming a “leader of content knowledge.” While the research and institutional curricular are silent on the process for developing leaders of content knowledge, there are abundant writings on effective leaders in particular fields or industries who acknowledged the value of knowing their fields well and knowing how that knowledge of the “content” became the core competency for realizing the goals of the organization.

            The subject of next four Blogs will draw upon the experiences of these “leaders of content knowledge” to develop a hypothetical model that a school leader might emulate to become a leader of content knowledge. The model that I propose is framed as a series of journeys—each journey informs the other journey and like all journeys can lead to unexpected destinations.

REFERENCES

Dewey, J. (1990). The child and the curriculum. In P. Jackson (Introd.). The school and society ; and, The child and the curriculum (181 – 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1902).

Drucker, P. (2006). What makes an effective executive. In T.A. Steward (Ed.), Classic Drucker: Essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review (pp. 115 – 125). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Gardner, H. (in collaboration with Laskin, E). (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of Leadership. New York: Basic Books.

Giuliani, R. (with Kurson, K.) (2002). Leadership. New York: Hyperion.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: prospects for the future. A Study of schooling in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

High school survey of student engagement 2005: What we can learn from students. Retrieved November 1, 2005 from http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/

Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational evaluation and policy anlaysis 23(4), 297 – 321.

Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14

Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: selected essays. (I. Westbury and N. Wilkof [Eds]), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher 30(3), 23- 28.

Stein, M.K., & Nelson, B. K. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), pp. 423 – 448.

Tharp, R. (1993). Institutional and social context of educational practice and reform. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development. (pp. 269 – 282), New York: Oxford University Press.

The Education Schools Project. (2005, March). Educating school leaders. Washingtion, DC. Arthur Levine