...by the year 2010 we can expect that the computer will be one of the dominant educational delivery systems in many parts of the world. (Bork 1991: 34)
If Bork is correct then there is scant time for school leaders to waste in implementing strategies to ensure its effective use as a learning tool in their schools. There has been a plethora of studies over the past decade on the use of technology in education. Unfortunately, too date; there have been limited studies on the role of the principal in the implementation of Information Technology in schools. The work of Telem and Buvitski (1995); Campbell and Cordiero (1996); Schiller (1997) and others is recognised here but the only large study conducted in the past three years was that by MacNeil and Delafield (1998). This paper suggests that there is a real need for more in depth studies focusing on the role of the principal with the greatest innovation to be introduced into schools in the last fifty years. It is impossible to cover all aspects and issues in a paper of this size so, of necessity, I have limited the scope.
In the context of this paper it is essential to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what we are examining and the parameters we are setting up. It is not the intention here to go into great depth on the theoretical basis of leadership, change management, and the implementation of IT in schools. Nor is it my aim to tackle the multitude of structural, professional development, pedagogical and other issues. Rather, the approach taken here is to give the reader a general feeling for the current thinking in the areas of leadership, change management and innovation. In particular, examining how that might relate to the implementation of IT (Information Technology) in schools and the role of the principal and thus be a starting point for discussion on the topic.
This paper will argue that effective leadership/change management skills and the development of effective learning communities are vital to ensure the successful implementation of IT in schools.
Sarason (1997) suggests that schools may not need principals, just managers. He further contends that there are principals who are not managers but they are characterised by (p.91) …”an assertive, supporting, ‘street smart’, charismatic principal who rarely was in her or his office but all over the school and the community.” The walls between the school and community were open and the school community supported the principal against the system. I am sure many principals can relate to both. According to Townsend (1999) this has been coupled with increasing advances in technology that will lead us to the development of the information age and virtual schools. He further suggests that principals will need to reclaim their roles as educational leaders. Experience has shown that there are many principals who do not just ‘manage’ their schools but are educational leaders in their own right. Many (Sergiovanni 1996, Caldwell 1997, Hill 1999) believe that educational leaders must also be change agents and head learners, not just managers. What characterises these leaders?
Early theories of leadership tended to reduce these characteristics to several variables, which facilitated empirical study but ignored, to a large extent, the cultural and political contexts in which they were embedded (Sergiovanni 1988). He further contended (1996) as does Fullan (1994) and Owens (1995) that it isn’t a matter of making others follow your vision but more of developing a shared vision. Owens (1995: 134) puts this clearly in the context of shared power and open communication.
Creating the mutually shared vision cannot be done without sharing some of the power that was traditionally closely held by those in the hierarchy and creating an environment that facilitates the development of trust and open communication that is essential to collaborative group effort.
Hill (1999), Wilsmore (1999) and Sergiovanni (1996) also emphasise the development of staff and community members to ensure successful leadership with the adoption of any innovation. Sergiovanni also argues (1996: 84) that “(…) schools should not function as businesses. And school leaders should not function as owners of businesses.” The theories of transforming and transactional leadership developed over past decades (see Owens 1995: 116-140) are well documented. In the past decades the educational leaderships have seen increasing changes in the context in which they operate.
Goldring (1997) suggests that the boundaries between school organisations and those outside the organisations are becoming increasingly permeable and that these have implications for school leadership and principals in particular. The increasing calls for accountability, both educational and financially also impinge on that leadership role. The enormous financial and human resources given to schools in NSW and other states to introduce computer technologies underpin this in the Australian context. Nor is this a purely Australian phenomenon, as readers in other countries will know.
Two of the prominent leaders in the field of educational leadership are Tom Sergiovanni (United States) and Peter Hill (Australia). To some extent they reflect the views of many others. Let us examine a summary of their ideas on leadership in the table below.
|
Sergiovanni (1996) |
Hill (1999) |
|
Theory – Community and ideas-based leadership |
Theory – Instructional Leadership |
|
Facets & practices |
Facets & practices |
|
Emphasis is on building a shared fellowship … not on whom to follow, but on what to follow. Members respond to substance and is idea based. |
Need to reconnect teaching and administration and reclaim the role of instructional leader. |
|
Shared vision but in an invitational mode, not a command or sell one. |
Shared belief in the importance of collaboration and community. |
|
Reciprocal process of leaders and followers influencing each other to action. |
Establishment of professional learning teams. |
|
Clear enunciation of roles and responsibilities. Connected to obligations. |
Appointment and on going training of team co-ordinators to act as mentors, coaches and lead learners. |
|
Directed to connecting teachers, parents, and students to each other and their responsibilities as defined by shared purposes. |
Need to be expert in learning theory, school change and professional development, curriculum theory, assessment and data analysis. |
|
Shared visions. Changes in organisation and mode of operation to attain goals. |
Shared beliefs and values. Seek growth not constant change. |
|
Key tasks of a leader:
|
Key tasks of a leader:
|
Table 1. Educational Leadership
Whilst there are obvious differences between the emphases of both educationalists there are also similarities. Gone is the autocratic leader working in isolation commanding and enforcing change. Collaborative leadership, hand in hand with continuing professional development is the norm. Sharing an articulated vision is part of this educational leadership. It is interesting to note that Sergiovanni suggests that ‘modeling’ is a key task of educational leaders and Hill emphasises the necessity for professional development of all and that the principal be knowledgeable in many key areas.
It is opportune to now look at how this leadership might be reflected in innovation and change management.
Most principals and educators know how difficult change management is. The introduction of even well known but innovative practices is problematic at the best of times. Many principals brought up on a chalk and talk diet find coping with devolution a big enough problem. Along comes IT, children seem to handle it with ease; young staff daily illustrate their skills. The principal, even if not technophobic, hasn’t often time to grasp the complexities, let alone see to its successful implementation.
Some writers (Fullan 1994) suggest we are fighting a losing battle. He contends, and many would agree, that neither top down regulation nor locally based reforms would transform schools. The main problem is juxtaposing a continuous change theme with a continuous, conservative system that defies change. Educators must create learning societies as part of a larger social agenda. He propounds eight essentials for a change paradigm. Finally he argues that continuous teacher education is essential to produce change. This is at some odds with the NSW Quality Assurance School Review statements on educational practice and leadership for change (In NSW in the early 1990s, Quality Assurance teams inspected all schools to report on school progress in a variety of curriculum and professional areas. In conjunction with the school community they published reports on the schools success or otherwise in these areas examined.). The following table illustrates some of the differences.
|
Fullan |
NSW QA School Review |
|
1. You can’t mandate or force change |
1. Provide time, resources and opportunities |
|
2. Change is a journey, not a blueprint |
2. Articulate the purpose |
|
3. Problems are our friends |
3. Organise relevant training and development establish supporting structures for change |
|
4. Vision and strategic planning come later |
4. Shape and reshape the schools vision |
|
5. Individualism and collectivism have equal power |
5. Nurture the use of innovative and creative solutions |
|
6. Neither centralisation nor decentralisation work by themselves |
6. Build teams |
|
7. Connections with the wider environment is critical for success |
7. Influence the direction of others |
|
8. Every person is a change agent |
8. Model, advocate and support continuous learning |
Table 2. Change Management
On closer examination however most (except vision) are compatible with Fullan. Many may disagree with some of Fullan’s thoughts, for example, “vision and strategic planning come later” but taken as a whole it does offer guidance for principals. Wilsmore’s (1997) pilot study into the role of the principal in the introduction of IT in schools [and his current research (1998-2000)] pointed out the importance of modeling, adequate knowledge, leadership, change management and the establishment of effective learning communities if change in the use of IT was to be more then superficial. Another view that appears to draw from both of the above is suggested by Wilkinson (1997). He informs us that the following are vital for school leaders in change management: meshing, empowering, communicating, interacting, responding, developing, envisioning, focusing, ensuring and having the patience and courage to let it happen. Geisert and Futrell’s (1995: 253-254) school-wide statement is also highly relevant. They suggests that:
School-wide planning is the responsibility of the school faculty and administration and it is they who need to initiate, plan, and implement the use of computers as an integral part of the school..
The suggestion here is that school leaders cannot abrogate their responsibility in this area. Finally Sergiovanni (1996) tells us that leaders must realise that the school is the centre of change and that in the end it is the teachers that will in the end decide what happens to students.
According to Parker (1999: 26):
Unless we get it right for the future we will see, increasingly, people who are banished to the ‘new techno-coated Dark Ages’.
There is little argument that enormous amounts of money have been expended on computers and computer technology in schools. A more contentious issue is the educational effectiveness of its integration into the normal classroom as a teaching/learning tool. This paper suggests that the role of the principal is crucial to its successful introduction and use. This view is supported by research reported by Sandholtz et al (1997) who concluded that one of the key factors on whether teachers integrated technology into their classrooms was the level of support they received from school administrators.
A more recent study in Texas (USA) by Macneil and Delafield (1998) examined principal leadership for successful school technology implementation. This study was one of the first focused research studies carried out in this area. One hundred and twelve principals and assistant principals were surveyed. Sixty-four returned the surveys. This is a significant number and gives reasonable credence to their claims that the majority viewed technology as very important in their schools and that it was important for teachers to utilise and learn technology as a curriculum tool. Some of the more important findings of the study were:
The final point mentioned is the most relevant for this paper. There have been other attempts to guide principals in the implementation and use of IT (Dawson 1997, Caldwell 1997, Cusack 1997, Smith 2000). Principals in NSW have their principals’ packages on TILT (Technology in Teaching and Learning). There has been a plethora of well-documented conferences in Australia over the past five years, for example, ’Curriculum for the Third Millennium’, ‘Shaping the Wisdom of Oz’, ‘Beyond the Boundaries’ and ‘Classroom Technology 98’. Similar conferences have been repeated overseas. Organisations such as IFET and the ITEA attempt to lead educators worldwide in the field. The major focus of many, when examining schools, has been on the use of IT in schools, not the role of the principal. Groups like APAPDC (Australian Principals Associations Professional Development Committee) and on line support through EdNA (Education Network Australia) have tried to fill the void in the literature for principals in Australia.
As many principals will know, these have only scratched the surface. The degree of technophobia of many principals (Parker 1999) is still holding back successful implementation of IT (Information Technology) in their schools.
It would seem important to point out (Atkin 1994, Mortimore 1996) that the principal who ignores the school as a learning community does so at their peril. Effective change management and leadership skills are essential. I concur with Dawson (1997) when he suggests that the leader or principal should be the head learner. In addition they should act as a facilitator for technology planning as Schiller’s’ study (1998) has already shown. IT will only be successfully implemented in schools if the principal actively supports it, learns as well and supports his/her staff in the process of change.
As Schiller (1998: 6) poses:
...will school leaders merely straggle down the ‘information highway’...research needs to be carried out...answers are needed to the questions. (That is posed by the introduction and use of IT.)
