SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research in Educational Administration and Leadership / 2018 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

Reflections on Education Reform and Team Leadership

Tricia BROWNE-FERRİGNO
Lars G. BJÖRK
Pages
339–347
Publication Date
2018-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this regard, teamwork has become an indispensable characteristic of organizational life, and depending on the task, teams may involve a wide array of stakeholders (e.g., superintendents, school board members, district support staff, principals, teachers, parents, students) or a select few representing specific constituencies to address specific issues.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:During recent decades, the notion of team leadership has emerged as a central theme in the international discourse on systemic education reform.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given the increasing complexity of 21st century education, effective leaders at all levels tend to rely less on bureaucratic, hierarchical structures and more on relational approaches to accomplish tasks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this regard, teamwork has become an indispensable characteristic of organizational life, and depending on the task, teams may involve a wide array of stakeholders (e.g., superintendents, school board members, district support staff, principals, teachers, parents, students) or a select few representing specific constituencies to address specific issues.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:education · reform · team

Abstract

During recent decades, the notion of team leadership has emerged as a central theme in the international discourse on systemic education reform. This issue of Research in Educational Administration and Leadership not only captures a collective sense of commitment to education as means for advancing national social, economic, and political wellbeing but also reflects a changing nature of leadership across a wide spectrum of educational organizations and contexts. Given the increasing complexity of 21st century education, effective leaders at all levels tend to rely less on bureaucratic, hierarchical structures and more on relational approaches to accomplish tasks. In this regard, teamwork has become an indispensable characteristic of organizational life, and depending on the task, teams may involve a wide array of stakeholders (e.g., superintendents, school board members, district support staff, principals, teachers, parents, students) or a select few representing specific constituencies to address specific issues.

🔖

Cite This Article

BROWNE-FERRİGNO, T., BJÖRK, L. G. (2018). Reflections on Education Reform and Team Leadership. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 339–347. https://ajindex.com/articles/932116

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. New York, NY: Routledge. Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent in the United States of America. In A. E. Nir (Ed.), The educational superintendent: Between trust and regulation. An international perspective (pp. 17-38).
  2. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National reports and implications for professional preparation and development. In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 45-70).
  3. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin. Blase, J., & Blase J. (2000). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6-44. Blase J., & Björk L. (2010). The micropolitics of educational change and reform: Cracking open the black box. In A. Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol 2, pp. 237-258).
  4. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Boyd, W.L. (1991). Foreword. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. vii-x). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  5. Boyd, R., & Richardson, P. J. (2009). Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), 3281-3288.
  6. Burns, J. M. (1978).
  7. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks. Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford Press.
  8. Cibulka, J. G. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education: Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity. Educational Policy, 15(1), 12-40.
  9. Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2007). Organizational learning: Improving learning, teaching, and leading in school systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darwin, C. (1871/1981). The decent of man and selection in relation to sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. Dittmer, L. (1977). Political culture and political symbolism: Toward a theoretical synthesis. World Politics, 29(4)