Book Review: Educational Leadership at 2050: Conjectures,Challenges,and Promises

The Current State of Educational Leadership Preparation and at 2050

Chapter 1 “At the Crossroads” is a phrase from Hackmann and McCarthy’s (2011) scholarship on educational leadership preparation for the 21st century. The chapter reviewed the current state of educational leadership preparation drawing on literature, in particular the Hackmann and McCarthy research, and the authors’ own experiences as educational leadership professors. The authors were part of a task force appointed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA), “the oldest organization of professors of educational administration in the United States” (p. 129). Their charge was to examine the state of educational leadership preparation and to make recommendations. Critical theorist Michael Apple’s work is emphasized by the authors as evidence that “we need to think internationally, not only to see the world from below, but to see the world relationally” (p. 9).

Major trends reviewed in the book include globalization, a decline in the reality of a major war (which is debatable), global warming, a worldwide clean potable drinking water shortage, the emergence of two major superpowers (viz., the United States and China), technological advancements, global terrorism, worldwide financial meltdowns, and political challenges such as the Arab Spring in the Middle East, and the rise of the Tea Party in the United States. Threats to world peace discussed included off-shoring jobs and job instability, decline in benefits and career opportunities for workers, food insecurity for the global poor, and indeed everyone given the control of food sources by agribusiness, and other global enterprises.

The Tea Party is likened to “an expression of populist sentiment with deep roots in American history beginning with the election of Andrew Jackson as president by what became known as ‘Jacksonian democracy’” (p. 16). The Tea Party, in my view, is neither populist nor an expression of democracy but rather a movement disguised as grassroots populism. The authors then shift to a discussion of the involvement of American billionaires Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Michael Dell, and John Walton in education without critiquing the effect the injection of money and grant-based business models in education has had on education in the stifling of democracy, free speech, and diminishing of genuine scientific research unhindered by billionaires’ business interests. When big business, not government and educators guided by public service and public interest, control education, we will suffer in the long run as a citizenry ill educated for today’s global environment but rather educated as uncritical consumers to support business interests. My own point of view appears to be in line with the argument of the authors, who have a critical bent, citing Michael Apple and others, but in my opinion, they do not go far enough in directly challenging business grabs for the education marketplace prize. The authors argue for the critical need for the two supra-agencies of state departments of education and the NCATE accreditation agency and also for the autonomy of universities to prepare educational leaders. The authors interpret business interests’ push for standardization of preparation programs as a way for business and industry profit-based organizations to gain even more power and control and to take power away from educators. As Catherine Marshall notes in her review of the book on the back cover, many of the outcomes and political processes described in the book are “scary scenarios.”

Chapter 2, “The Digital Age and Learning to Lead in It,” describes the younger generation or Net Geners’ technological literacy and the changes anticipated for educational leadership preparation. The authors appear optimistic for social justice advances, suggesting “discrimination based on sexuality, class, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and other differences will likely not be tolerated within these school communities” (p. 28). They project midcentury school leaders will teach students the value of diversity. My question: Why does the book not offer examples of ways they themselves are already accomplishing the goal of affirming diversity in their leadership programs and communities, in addition to projecting it as a goal for 2050?

Chapter 3, “Warning Signs of the Times,” opens the second part of the book, where the authors shift from what they project will happen by 2050 to the challenges that might prevent some of their visioning from being realized. This section of the book offers descriptive detail on current trends in education and erosion of democracy in public education in this country. Current trends, including the resegregation of public schools, the marketization of education, the reduction in power of teacher unions and the deprofessionalization of educational leadership preparation programs, the rise of online education diploma mills by for-profit organizations, and the erosion of full-time tenure track faculty in educational leadership preparation programs were described. The authors revealed, citing Cary, that “a quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students” (p. A88). Clearly, these trends are alarming given the lack of political action by educational leaders to prevent or at least diminish these trends. As such, the chapter is a call to action, and with the authors’ roles in NCPEA (Fenwick English is the current president of NCPEA and all authors have current roles in the organization), we should expect action to result from the identification of trends.

Chapter 4, “Leadership for Social Justice,” adopts the perspective that poverty is a critical and growing trend in society with a widening gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Educational leaders must have a social justice perspective of leadership to enhance educational opportunities for all. The authors point out the unequal rates of poverty across different racial groups in the United States citing 2005 census data indicating the poverty rate among African Americans is 24.9%, Hispanics 21.8%, Asian Americans 11%, and Whites 8.3% (p. 60). I would have preferred more direct research, policy, and practice applications. Other countries, such as Australia, already provide models for education equity financing reform across districts, and some of these alternatives could have been explored in the book to enhance the call for social justice with actionable leadership initiatives.

Chapter 5, “Accoutrements: Connecting the Art and Science and Leadership,” begins Part III of the book, entitled “Promises.” The authors again project what leadership would be if leaders were intent on creating more socially just schooling. The section provides an exploration of the six dispositions or “accoutrements” necessary for the 2050 school leader. First, leading adult learners requires an understanding of adult learning principles. Without citing any of the adult learner theorists, or defining andragogy, the authors make the laudable suggestion that teachers and school leaders need to find ways to learn and work together in the interests of student learning. Second, programs need to find ways to develop “compassion as human agency,” meaning building school cultures based on “personal relationships” between students, staff, and parents. Third, the authors acknowledge “ignored but intended skills,” specifically communication and listening skills. Personal relationships with students, staff, parents, and community will likely improve when leader candidates attend with intentionality to improved communication and purposive listening. Fourth, “encouraging intellectual curiosity” or a passion for exploration and curiosity are posited as essential skills. Fifth, “understanding futurity” advances a view of school leaders who can anticipate what is happening in societal trends and prevent negative outcomes before they are realized. A missed opportunity in the book may have been the call to action and political engagement from a moral or authentic democratic leadership perspective that advances communication and does not harden or polarize opposing political viewpoints. Sixth, “exploring imaginativeness” encourages playful innovation and experimentation, including the example of the principal who spends 2 days a week as instructional leader to ensure that teachers are developed, not merely supervised, and that they are well supported in the instructional process. At the conclusion of this chapter on social justice, I was surprised to see a quote by Mark Twain, given Twain’s views. In a futuristic book, I see so many other possibilities for quotes and support from modern-day social justice advocates such as Tavis Smiley, Cornell West, and bell hooks, to name just a few.

Chapter 6, “Framing the Preparation of the 2050 Educational Leader,” advances the view of fostering democracy and a “highly engaged global citizenry” through pedagogically centered leadership. The curriculum in the proposed leadership preparation program would include the following elements: (a) problem-based work; (b) experiential approach; (c) constructivist theoretical and methodological foundation with the learner and his or her meaning at the center of all experiences; (d) ethnic-oriented, referring to one’s own ethnic and cultural background as a basis for learning; and (e) student-centered. The authors also advocate the value of leadership in technology as a necessary advancement for social justice leadership. The model is commendable. The authors conclude that “much of this preparation [in the future] needs to focus on learning in technology as a new cultural standard of excellence and equity for schooling environments” (p. 99). However, many of the educational inequities center around technology and lack of technology for economically impoverished schools and school districts; therefore, the work of leveling the playing field in technology through leadership initiatives at the policy level remain for those implementing the authors’ vision of pedagogically centered leadership.

Chapter 7, citing Gunter’s (2002) work, proposes a “radical” recentering of educational leadership by 2050, The authors criticize the traditional division between teacher preparation and educational leadership preparation in universities. Although they believe the university is the best place for leadership preparation, they see value in restructuring to include teachers and administrators working together and in collaboration with P-12 schools for their preparation. Finally, the epilogue, Tempus fugit—a Latin phrase translated as “time flies”—emphasizes the urgency of the need to revitalize educational leadership preparation nationwide.

Art and Science Encapsulated in Pedagogically Centered Leadership

What makes their thesis new is it is anchored in the ground-breaking scholarship of Etta Hollins, who asserted a radically different vision for education and educational leadership (see Hollins, 1996a, 1996b, 2011; Hollins, King, & Hayman, 1994). Leadership and learning in university programs and in public schools were seen as two sides of the same coin, with a synergistic energy to revitalize democracy and the public good in both leadership preparation and leadership practice. Hollins posited a practice-based approach to teacher and leadership preparation where teachers and leaders learned together and used and applied theory in authentic settings using the qualitative research methods of “focused inquiry, directed observation, and guided practice” (p. 395). Pedagogically centered leadership as derived from Hollins (2011, p. 397) means working together collaboratively with colleagues in a professional community with the goal of improving student outcomes by designing preparation that attends to six essential components:

From a position at the end of the first decade in the so-called digital and global age, Educational Leadership at 2050 offers a vision for educational leadership preparation where future teachers and current practicing teachers aspiring to be school leaders can develop their competencies within a setting where there are no superior/subordinate relationships. Aspiring teachers and aspiring principals and superintendents would be free of the hierarchy of management and supervision and instead would function as a team of individuals focused on seeking the optimum learning outcomes for students. Is this realistic? How would it work? Would administrators be willing to work collegially side-by-side with their teachers and still be able to maintain their professional identities as administrators? The restructuring must go beyond simple departmental organizational arrangements into the flat organizations or matrix. Undergraduate students and graduate students would perhaps be working together or perhaps teacher candidates would be required to have a degree prior to seeking teacher certification. All these organizational dimensions were left unanswered in the book, which instead sought to paint a broad canvas with brushstrokes of possibility for leadership preparation in the next 38 years.

Implications for Policy and Practice

An area where the book falls short is in its broad-based approach to all the problems of our current society, rather than focusing specifically on leadership preparation. The implications are worthwhile that these pressing issues must be taken into account as we prepare future administrators, but the authors attend to so many issues that they are unable to address any of them with any depth. A sampling of some of the topics covered in the book included:

Regarding scholarship and theory development, one of the refinements to the book and future work by the authors in my view would be addressing the difference between similarly situated theories in educational leadership and more clearly defining pedagogically centered leadership. It is difficult to recenter the field, when there are so many voices calling for the center position, and they are clearly related. Below are several of the competing and related interests:

The area where I found the book offered the most promise was in policy initiatives, even though regrettably the book was short on policy recommendations. The major significant policy recommendation of the book was the collaboration of teacher preparation with administrator preparation. Situated within the recommendation for collaboration was the concept of yearlong internships for prospective leaders in low-income, impoverished schools; title 1 schools; low-performing schools; and rural schools. Many programs may already offer such internship opportunities, but the authors contend all students must be prepared for all types of schools in order to be fully prepared.

Finally, for scholarship with a social justice leadership perspective, neglected was any attention to racism and antiracism in leadership preparation. Race-based inequities in U.S. education deserve not just a mention but our outrage and specific demands for change. NCES statistics on gender equity in leadership were included (p. 65), but no mention was made of the gap in cultural diversity preparation in educational leadership and the lack of an effective pipeline to recruit and retain culturally diverse school leaders to meet the needs of students and families. Commendably, the authors do attack the trend to resegregation in schools and communities but, other than suggesting a renewed commitment to public schools, do not inquire into critical policy and practice implications for remedying the issue.

Conclusion

The vision for pedagogically centered leadership offers the potential for legislators and policy makers to attend to the gap between culturally diverse student population and their educators and school leaders, a problem that has been persistent over many decades and shows little promise of changing without corrective social policy for democracy. Culturally responsive leadership as defined by the book review author (Hondo, Gardiner, & Sapien, 2008) includes seeking, recruiting, mentoring, and retaining culturally diverse administrators. Furthermore, the book authors offer the additional perspective that all students are being disadvantaged by an educational system that fails to offer leadership by culturally diverse administrators and teachers. When administrators and teachers remain predominantly White through lack of commitment to diversifying the educational workforce, all our students suffer. When there is no representation of diversity in public school educators and in university faculty in educational leadership and teacher preparation, we cannot expect the best education.