Team Leadership

Abstract

Group decision-making can result in important benefits for organizational effectiveness. However, collaborative environments do not emerge organically. Effective leadership is critical for group success. Educational leaders must understand group processes and the importance of creating a culture that supports collaboration. Student discipline for off-campus behavior is an example of a complex situation that offers opportunity for group decision-making. Legal questions have yielded new twists in recent years with districts taking a more aggressive stance toward off-campus behavior that has a spillover effect at school. In this case study, team leadership and legal aspects of discipline are examined in the context of Superintendent Carter’s attempt to lead a group through a complex, ambiguous, emotionally charged situation that has potential consequences for a wide variety of stakeholders.

Keywords

team leadership collaborative school culture student discipline ERIC descriptors

Case Narrative

The honeymoon was over. When Joseph Carter took the position of superintendent at Peace Academy, an independent, private school, 3 years before, he had envisioned an environment free of the stresses that he had encountered in his previous position as a principal in a high-poverty, urban environment. Here at Peace Academy, parents and community members were highly involved, and Mr. Carter looked forward to working cooperatively with what he perceived to be like-minded parents and faculty members. He had also envisioned working alongside like-minded administrators to make decisions that would benefit both individual students and the entire student body. He knew that teachers sacrificed higher salaries offered in public schools to work at this private institution, and parents paid tuition and volunteered significant time and energy to benefit the school. Teachers enjoyed the working environment and comradery they experienced at the school. Parents felt good about sending their children to a safe school environment. Surely, thought Mr. Carter, this environment would be easier than working through the issues associated with high levels of poverty: many disconnected/absentee parents, a school culture that was distinctly different from the culture that many students experienced at home, violence and crime in surrounding neighborhoods, and student behavior problems and underachievement attributed to each of these conditions.

The History of Peace Academy

As he reflected back over the history of Peace Academy, Mr. Carter thought about the rich legacy that he had inherited. What had begun as a small group of committed parents over 30 years before had grown into a PreK-12 school with an enrollment of more than 1,000 students. A smile of satisfaction emerged on his face as he reflected upon the fact that a group of 20 highly committed, founding families had made tremendous sacrifices to keep the school “afloat” during those early years—contributing generous amounts of money, time, and talent to keep the doors of the school open. Mr. Carter had been told that at one point early in the school’s history, financial decisions, including the decision to purchase an abandoned public school building, had required founding families to reach deep into their pockets to secure the purchase of the facility and, ultimately, the future of the school. Several of these families spent significant portions of their retirement savings to make the purchase. However, they felt that their commitment to purchase the building was necessary because it allowed all grades PreK-12 to be housed in one building reflecting the continuity and sense of community that was important to all involved. Several of those families were still involved in the school. In addition, the school was now old enough that graduates of Peace Academy were sending their children to the school, creating a rich feeling of tradition and heritage.

Mr. Carter also thought about the fact that, through the years, the school had experienced several “bumps in the road.” As a private school, tuition dollars were the school’s largest source of revenue, and during the formative years of the school, the school faced the challenge of keeping enrollment at high enough levels to meet financial needs. As a result, administrators had admitted students with a history of significant behavior problems in an effort to increase revenue. These administrators justified their decisions by thinking, “We can turn these students around” when, in reality, the result was just the opposite. A large number of families left the school at that time because of the negative influence of those incoming students on the school environment. The school’s reputation in the community suffered, and it had taken more than 10 years for the school’s reputation to rebound and to experience consistent increases in enrollment.

The Mission and Vision of Peace Academy

Mr. Carter was proud of the fact that, at the present time, the school was well known in the community as a school of academic excellence holding two nationally recognized accreditations. It was considered a “safe place” for students, and Peace Academy students were highly regarded because of their involvement in the community through community service. It was also well known that the school attempted to maintain tuition levels that made it accessible to middle class families. In this urban setting, there were several very large surrounding districts and many private schools that competed for the same population of students. Adding to the richness and diversity of the school, generous donations to the school provided for an extensive scholarship program. These scholarships enabled the school to meet the needs of many single-parent families or other parents who could not normally afford private school tuition.

To help solidify the purpose of the school and to guide future decisions, an extensive strategic planning session involving parents, community members, administrators, and teachers had been conducted during those founding years. The planning resulted in the development of a mission statement and a list of core values. The mission of the school that was developed was “Peace Academy exists to provide an accredited college preparatory education, in partnership with involved parents, that is founded on Biblical principles. We seek to cultivate Christian character and equip students to excel academically, spiritually, physically, and socially.” This statement was visibly posted throughout the building and on key school documents. Core values of the school included compassion, honesty, respect, service, integrity, and trust. Mr. Carter was well aware of the tremendous responsibility that the superintendent and Board of Trustees shared to protect the vision and mission of the school.

To stay true to their mission, all administrators and faculty employed by the school were asked to sign a statement of commitment to the school’s mission and core values when they were hired. Students and families who were enrolled in the school were also asked to sign a statement each year agreeing to the core values, mission, and discipline policies of the school. A key component of the school’s discipline policy, a drug and alcohol policy, stated that students were “expected to conduct themselves in a manner that represents the school and Christian character at all times, both at school and away from school.” This statement was included on admission packets, and student signatures indicating understanding and agreement with the statement were required before re-enrollment the following year (Appendix A). Administrators explained this expectation to prospective students and families when students interviewed for enrollment in the school.

In addition to these efforts to adhere to the founding mission of the school, Mr. Carter had convinced the Board of Trustees to hire a Development Officer to help coordinate all fundraising and marketing of the school. Through his efforts, the school had developed an extensive advertising campaign which included slogans aimed to attract new families to the school. Statements such as “Peace Academy: The right kind of peer pressure for your kids”; “Equipping students not only to go out into the world but also to change it”; “Preparing students for life as a follower of Christ”; and “You cannot determine their entire journey through life, but you can make sure they start on the right path” were evident on all marketing pieces and displayed prominently throughout the school.

Student Discipline at Peace Academy

This particular school year had begun relatively smoothly. Principals were in place over each unit of the school (elementary, middle, and high school), and enrollment was at capacity. Waiting lists existed for most of the elementary grades and several of the middle and high school grades. Mr. Carter felt comfortable that, at the present time, the school was financially secure, and faculty and staff enjoyed collaborative, collegial working relationships. Mr. Carter knew that key administrators did not necessarily agree on every issue, especially the implementation of certain policies handed down from the Board of Trustees, but as principals were responsible for their own group of students, disagreements rarely surfaced.

Years before Mr. Carter had come to the school, the Board of Trustees had spent hours laboring over the development of a discipline policy. The resulting plan categorized typical discipline behaviors into four categories ranging from Level 1 to Level 4 offenses (Appendix B). Level 1 offenses included behavior that did not directly cause harm to the school or to others, but left unaddressed, had potential to contribute to a nonproductive learning environment. Examples of Level 1 offenses included behaviors such as tardiness to class and dress code violations, and consequences ranged from a phone call to parents to after-school detention. On the other end of the continuum, Level 4 offenses included behavior that could endanger the lives of others (such as possession or use of a firearm or dangerous weapon) or participation in illegal activity (such as theft or the use or distribution of controlled substances such as illegal drugs). Level 4 offenses were severe and resulted in automatic dismissal from the school. Level 2 and Level 3 offenses fell in the middle of the continuum with increasing penalties from Saturday School detention to in and out of school suspension for Level 2 offenses and suspension to expulsion for Level 3 offenses. The policy was written in such a way that administrators had a limited amount of discretion when assigning consequences for disciplinary behavior. Therefore, the policy allowed administrators to consider details specific to each situation when assigning consequences as long as consequences fell within established guidelines. This year, discipline issues had been fairly typical, and the year was promising to be one of the school’s best years.

The fateful Monday morning began as a typical Monday; however, students seemed unusually distracted. Several high school teachers were experiencing difficulty in class keeping students “on task.” There appeared to be unrest among the students, and teachers consistently attempted to divert attention from the whispers circulating among the students. Although effort was made by students to conceal specific information, teachers could tell that students had varied, yet equally strong, reactions to whatever it was that they were discussing. During class, some students appeared to be very troubled while others laughed and joked among themselves. Teachers commented between classes that efficient use of class time that morning had been a challenge.

After first period class, two sophomore girls, Amy and Melissa, slipped into Mrs. Allison’s class during her planning period and asked if they could speak with her. The girls were visibly upset, and with tears running down their faces, they told their stories. Both had attended a party in the early evening the past Saturday. They said that other Peace Academy students had invited them to the party and that the party had gotten “out of hand.” They explained that they knew that Peace Academy wanted them to follow the rules whether they were in school or not, and they wanted to leave the party early because they knew that drinking alcohol was strictly forbidden at Peace Academy. Amy added, “Especially because we are not old enough to drink alcohol anyway.” They explained that the party had gotten “too rough,” and many students became visibly intoxicated. One student, a Student Council officer in the freshman class, had become so intoxicated that she became sick. Melissa added, “She passed out, and we couldn’t get her to wake up.” Amy cried as she explained that she was so frightened that she wanted to call her parents for help, but she was warned not to do so by older students. They explained that older students had assured them that she would “be alright,” but when the student did not appear at school that morning, they felt the need to tell someone. As they were finishing their conversation, Amy and Melissa wanted to know if they would be in trouble for telling Mrs. Allison, and she reassured them that the school would protect their confidentiality and that the school had a policy for “self-reporting” that would ensure that their discipline consequences, if any, were less severe.

After the girls left Mrs. Allison’s room, she called Mr. Jones, the high school principal. Mr. Jones indicated that he had heard some discussion about a party as well. He was interested to hear what Mrs. Allison had learned from the girls. Mr. Jones took careful notes while Mrs. Allison revealed all that Amy and Melissa had shared with her. Mr. Jones said that he would determine how to proceed and thanked Mrs. Allison for the information. Several other teachers approached Mr. Jones before lunch that day to state that students were talking about this event, and that it had caused quite a disruption to the school day so far. As Mr. Jones began to piece together information, he came to understand that the party had been held at the home of a student from Peace Academy, with no parents present, and that large amounts of alcohol had been consumed. To complicate matters, the home where the event was held was the home of a former Board member who was also a large contributor to the school. He also learned that students from all high school classes (freshman through senior) had attended the party, and that students from other schools had attended as well. As teachers brought information to him, he began making a list of student names that had been mentioned who may have attended the party. His list had grown to more than 50 students, and Mr. Jones decided to seek the counsel of the superintendent.

Mr. Carter’s Team Approach

When Mr. Carter heard details from Mr. Jones, he suggested that, because this incident involved such a large number of students in the school and discipline consequences could be severe, they include other administrators in the fact gathering process. Mrs. Caney, the middle school principal, her assistant principal, Mrs. Watson, and the Dean of Students, Mr. Sloan, were called in to assist. Mr. Carter’s plan was to divide the list of students, call individual students into respective offices, and have administrators ask them questions about the event. Mrs. Caney, Mrs. Watson, and Mr. Sloan were instructed to take careful notes about student responses and bring the notes to a meeting after school. Mr. Carter indicated that the meeting after school would determine the next steps in the process. Angrily, Mr. Carter stated, “Someone is going to be expelled over this incident.”

The remainder of the afternoon was spent with each administrator interviewing each of the students on his or her list. Students were asked questions about what happened at the party, who was in attendance, alcohol consumption, and any other information that they would like to share. Because they worked together in the middle school office, Mrs. Caney and Mrs. Watson discussed results of their interviews after all interviews were completed and before they attended the administrator meeting. Each indicated that she had a wide variety of responses from students. Some of the students were deeply troubled by the event. Although many students were willing to provide details, some discrepancy existed concerning who was actually responsible for bringing alcohol to the party. Students verified the story of the freshman Student Council officer, and each expressed concern about the fact that she had become so very ill making statements such as “She was really sick. I was afraid something really bad was going to happen to her.” Additional details surfaced as well. As more alcohol was consumed, behavior became more and more inappropriate, and students indicated that “they were the talk of the other school districts.”

Several students had asked to invite a parent to come to the school to attend the interview with them. Parent and student responses during these interviews were varied as well. During one of the meetings with a parent involved, both the parent and the student were deeply remorseful about the student’s behavior and indicated that they would accept any punishment that the school felt necessary. Mrs. Caney congratulated the student for being honest and taking responsibility for her actions and added, “I think this can become an important learning opportunity. I appreciate your honesty.” She knew that discipline consequences were yet to be determined, but she assured the student that her honesty would benefit her. She also believed that parent support and the “self-report” policy could help to alleviate potential consequences. However, other parents were not as cooperative and indicated that they felt that the interview process was unfair and that the school should not seek to discipline students for events that happened off campus. Some parents encouraged their students not to answer questions and to simply remain silent.

Mrs. Caney and Mrs. Watson also noted that there was a group of students who were uncooperative and would not provide any details about the event. Several of the students stated, “I do not think it is my responsibility to incriminate other students or talk about the party.” After this phrase had been repeated exactly the same way a number of times, Mrs. Caney and Mrs. Watson concluded that this response was so very similar that the students appeared to have rehearsed what to say with each other before coming into the office. Sensing that these students clearly did not want to cooperate or provide details, both Mrs. Caney and Mrs. Watson agreed to share that concern at the administrator meeting after school.

After school that day, Mr. Carter called Mr. Jones, Mr. Sloan, Mrs. Caney, and Mrs. Watson into his office to discuss findings from the interviews. Mrs. Caney and Mrs. Watson were eager to share their findings from interviews throughout the day, and they shared freely the information that they had gathered. They both shared their opinion that they felt that Peace Academy should administer some form of discipline due to the number of students involved, the fact that the incident was highly visible among students from other schools, and the conduct of these students was in direct violation of the agreement that students had signed when they enrolled. They stressed that alcohol violations were, according to Peace Academy policy, Level 3 violations with possible consequences ranging from suspension to expulsion. They expressed appreciation for the students who had been honest and expressed remorse and asked Mr. Carter if the Peace Academy “self-report” policy could be applied to those students. They agreed that it was difficult to discern which students were primarily responsible for bringing alcohol to the event. They had been diligent to take careful notes during each interview and were willing to provide a copy of their notes to other administrators.

In contrast, Mr. Jones was not willing to share his findings with other administrators. Regardless of what the other administrators thought, he felt that it was his responsibility, as the high school principal, to make the final decision about discipline. He felt that others’ role in the incident was merely fact gathering and that they should not participate in the assignment of consequences for behavior of high school students. He indicated that their involvement made his job more complicated because this was a “high school issue.” He argued that he felt that student testimony was “sketchy” at best, and he did not agree that the interview process that had just taken place was the best way to handle this problem. He felt that calling students down one by one had created an environment of mistrust and caused students to testify against their friends. He stated that he thought the process was “unfair.” He indicated that it was impossible to know what had truly happened or who was responsible, and he felt that it was not wise to base discipline decisions of that magnitude on the testimony of other students. He felt that asking students to testify against other students had already begun to deeply divide the student body and harm the environment at the school. In addition, he added, “We are taking important time away from instructional time, and now more students are talking about the incident than they were this morning.” Mr. Jones was adamant about withholding the information that he had gathered from other administrators, and he was not willing to share his notes with others. He restated the fact that he thought that it was his responsibility to handle the situation, and he thanked the others for their involvement to this point. Mr. Jones asked for each administrator’s notes, and he pushed back from the table indicating that he was ready for the discussion to end.

The discussion then erupted. Visibly upset, Mrs. Caney and Mrs. Watson indicated that they did not support Mr. Jones’ response. They wondered why they had been brought into the process if their voices were not going to be heard. Mrs. Watson spoke up and said,

How can we, at the middle school level, follow policy handed to us by the board when Mr. Jones makes his own decisions? This is not the first time this has happened. We are always left looking like the bad guys.

Mrs. Caney joined in and said

We were asked to conduct these interviews by Mr. Carter. We told the students who were honest with us how proud of them we were and that they did the right thing by being honest. We feel that the students who are uncooperative are violating their commitment to abide by rules of the school and respect the authority of the school. I am deeply troubled by Mr. Jones’ actions.

Mr. Sloan remained silent but handed his notes to Mr. Jones. He worked closely with both Mr. Jones and Mrs. Caney, and he knew that disagreeing with either of them in front of other administrators was not a wise decision. With tension mounting and not sure of how to proceed, Mr. Carter dismissed the meeting and told his administrative team that they would reconvene in the morning.

In the meantime, tension was mounting. Additional parents had become aware of the situation and had begun calling the school. Several parents called Board members with very strong opinions about how the situation should be handled. Some parents were upset that their student had been called in to testify. Others were threatening to take legal action if their student experienced severe consequences for an off-campus, non-school-related event based on the testimony of other students. These parents felt that the “interrogation process was unfair.” In contrast, other parents were threatening to remove their children from the school and claimed that they expected a tuition refund if the situation was not “taken seriously.” They felt that failure to discipline students would mean that the school did not “uphold its commitment to provide a safe environment for students.” Teachers were openly discussing the issue, and they, too, were deeply divided about how they felt it should be handled. At 4:30 that afternoon, Mr. Smith, the President of the Board of Trustees, called Mr. Carter asking how he was going to resolve the issue.

Teaching Notes

Leadership in the 21st century is complex and multidimensional (Northouse, 2010). According to Bolman and Deal (2011), modern organizations are full of ambiguity, complexity, turbulence, and confusion. Similar to business organizations, schools operate in a much more complex, diverse environment than in times past. For example, increased accountability standards combined with public distrust make the role of the educational leader even more challenging. Often, leaders in today’s school districts, both public and private, rely on and utilize the expertise of other members of the organization in the form of groups or teams to find answers to complex problems. This form of shared leadership, or team leadership, provides a platform to tap into the insight of multiple stakeholders for complex problem solving. Ivory and Acker-Hocevar (2007) suggest that leaders who effectively include others in the decision-making process tap into often under-utilized skills and expertise for more successful problem solving and collaboration. Gorton and Alston (2012) note the following advantages of group problem solving:

Increasing the number of viewpoints and ideas relevant to the decision being made

Better utilization of available expertise and problem-solving skills

Improving school morale by showing individuals involved that their opinions and skills are valued

Aiding acceptance and implementation of a decision because people who are involved are more likely to understand the decision and be more committed to its success

Consistency with a democratic principle of society that holds that those who are affected by decisions should have some voice in how schools are run (Gorton & Alston, 2012, p. 41).

A Culture of Shared Leadership

Leading groups in the decision-making process requires skill to facilitate successful group outcomes. Effective leaders must understand how to lead others in collaborative processes, and they must model behavior consistent with effective decision-making. Specifically, successful team leadership requires developing a shared and cohesive culture within the team that supports collaborative efforts (Bolman & Deal, 1992). This responsibility falls on the superintendent or principal as the lead decision-maker in the district or building. These leaders must understand the importance of “re-culturing” the organization so that the guiding beliefs and expectations about the way teams operate support and facilitate collaborative processes (Fullan, 1999, 2007). Values, beliefs, norms, and practices must be established that support the process of collaborative decision-making.

In this case study, Mr. Carter has been given the opportunity, in the midst of a crisis, to lead a group of administrators through a collaborative decision-making process. This case gives prospective administrators the opportunity to examine group dynamics and to discuss factors that can facilitate the creation and sustainability of a culture that supports collaborative decision-making.

Student Rights in Public and Private Schools

This case study also gives educational leaders a better understanding of how to structure discipline policies that both protect the rights of students and fulfill the mission and vision of the school, whether public or private. It is important to note that there are important differences in student rights between students who are enrolled in public schools and students who have enrolled in private schools by choice. Students who enroll in private schools by choice, either their choice or their parent’s choice, have fewer protected rights than students in public schools. In this case study, opportunity is first given to evaluate discipline for off-campus behavior from a public school perspective. Doing so encourages an understanding of student First Amendment (free speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) rights in a public school setting. In contrast, these rights do not apply to students enrolled in private schools (unless specifically outlined in State statute). Therefore, opportunity is then given in this case study to evaluate this situation from a private school perspective, leading to a richer understanding of the balance of student rights and the importance of maintaining a school environment conducive to student learning. An additional strength of this case is that it provides an opportunity to consider legal aspects of disciplinary issues in light of a complex, ambiguous, emotionally charged situation that has potential consequences for a wide variety of stakeholders.

The objectives of this case study reflect the following Educational Leadership Constituents Council Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership:

Standard 1.0: A district-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a shared district vision of learning through the collection and use of data to identify district goals, assess organizational effectiveness, and implement district plans to achieve district goals; promotion of continual and sustainable district improvement; and evaluation of district progress and revision of district plans supported by district stakeholders.

Standard 3.0: A district-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of every student by ensuring the management of the district’s organization, operation, and resources through monitoring and evaluating district management and operational systems; efficiently using human, fiscal, and technological resources within the district; promoting district-level policies and procedures that protect the welfare and safety of students and staff across the district; developing district capacity for distributed leadership; and ensuring that district time focuses on high-quality instruction and student learning

Standard 4.0: A district-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of every student by collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources for the district by collecting and analyzing information pertinent to improvement of the district’s educational environment; promoting an understanding, appreciation, and use of the community’s diverse cultural, social, and intellectual resources throughout the district; building and sustaining positive district relationships with families and caregivers; and cultivating productive district relationships with community partners.

Standard 5.0: A district-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner to ensure a district system of accountability for every student’s academic and social success by modeling district principles of self-awareness, reflective practice, transparency, and ethical behavior as related to their roles within the district; safeguarding the values of democracy, equity, and diversity within the district; evaluating the potential moral and legal consequences of decision-making in the district; and promoting social justice within the district to ensure individual student needs inform all aspects of schooling.

The following section is a review of the literature that begins with an examination of emerging theories of team leadership, group dynamics, and establishing a culture of collaboration. This section is followed by an examination of literature concerning the school’s authority to issue sanctions for off-campus behavior. Following each subsection of the literature review is a set of questions designed to engage students in critically examining and applying key points presented in that subsection.

Literature Review

Part I

Team leadership

One of the most current and most popular areas of leadership theory and research has been the examination of work teams or organizational groups (Northouse, 2010). According to Northouse (2010), teams are defined as “organizational groups composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish those goals” (p. 241). The benefits of working in teams are well documented. Bennis (1997) suggests that “our world has been the product of ‘Great Groups,’ teams of creative persons who banded together to achieve remarkable successes that would not have been possible through a traditional hierarchical approach” (p. 29). Bolman and Deal (1992) emphasize the potential of teams for enhanced decision-making and performance by proposing that teams “can elevate the performance of ordinary mortals to extraordinary heights” (p. 34). Research on the effectiveness of organizational teams indicates that the use of teams can lead to greater productivity, a more effective use of resources, better decisions and problem solving, better-quality products and services and greater innovation and creativity (Parker, 1990). In addition, working in teams offers significant benefit to the organization as groups combine skills and abilities for decision-making to collectively fulfill the vision or mission of the organization (Gorton & Alston, 2012).

Research also supports the idea that leadership is an essential component for team effectiveness. In fact, Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001) argue that effective leadership processes are the most critical factor in determining team success. Conversely, ineffective leadership is often seen as the primary reason that teams fail (Stewart & Manz, 1995). Leadership from this perspective is viewed as “team-based problem solving” (Northouse, 2010, p. 245) in which the leader has responsibility for functioning in a manner that will promote team effectiveness. Fleishman et al. (1991) suggests that leaders must select and implement appropriate behaviors to ensure that teams function well. In addition, leaders must have the ability to determine when intervention is necessary and which solutions are most appropriate (Zaccaro et al., 2001).

Group dynamics and culture

An important component of effective team leadership is the understanding that successful teams do not happen organically. Collaboration, or working in teams, involves much more than simply dividing up responsibilities (Goulet, Krentz, & Christiansen, 2003). Group processes and group dynamics are important components in effective teams. For example, Bennis (1997) suggests that roles typically evolve within groups as members work together to solve complex problems. Roles that typically emerge are providing direction and meaning, generating and sustaining trust, displaying an eagerness to take action, and spreading hope. Group members become empowered as they exercise their abilities and assume these group roles. Bennis contends that these roles combine to form the synergy needed to solve complex problems.

Another important ingredient for team leadership is the establishment of a culture within the organization and within teams that supports collaborative decision-making. Establishing a culture where people come together to solve problems and achieve a common purpose leads to “higher levels of trust and respect among colleagues, improved professional satisfaction, improved instructional practices, better outcomes for all students, and school change that is maintained over time” (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010, p. 59). It is the responsibility of the leader to ensure that values, beliefs, norms, and practices of the organization support the process of collaborative decision-making and that individuals are socialized into these cultural norms. Gorton and Alston (2012) identify six cultural factors that enhance group performance. These factors are (a) facilitating group cohesiveness, (b) providing for the need of group members to feel valued, (c) ensuring that each member can make an important contribution to group effectiveness, (d) ensuring the sharing of common goals, (e) promoting a spirit of cooperation and teamwork, and (f) fostering mutual trust (Gorton & Alston, 2012). These factors work together to create an environment conducive to the facilitation of complex decision-making.

Discussion questions

Given the complexity of the situation, do you agree that a “team decision-making” approach is appropriate? What are the benefits? What are the challenges?

Who, with what limits, should investigate this issue? Who should make the decision regarding discipline?

If Mr. Carter and the Board of Trustees are committed to working in a collaborative mode, what are some things that Mr. Carter can do to establish a collaborative culture within this group?

Gorton and Alston (2012) suggest six key factors for effective group performance. Which of these factors are present in this situation and which are missing?

What makes a team work

Bolman and Deal (2011, 1992) argue that teams play a vital role in organizational success. They suggest further that, even though the corporate world relies more and more on teamwork, “it often does so without a solid grasp of what makes a team work” (Bolman & Deal, 1992, p. 34). Bolman and Deal (2011) propose four frameworks, or lenses, through which a leader can view team processes. These frameworks include the structural frame, an emphasis on rationality, efficiency, planning, and policies; the human resource frame, a focus on the interaction between individual and organizational needs; the political frame, an emphasis on conflict among different groups and competition for scarce resources; and the symbolic frame, an understanding that meaning and predictability are socially constructed and facts are interpretive rather than objective (Bolman & Deal, 2011). Of these frameworks, the structural and human resource frames often gain attention as a foundation for successful team leadership. Hackman (1990) suggests four structural and human resource variables that are critical to a group’s effectiveness. These variables include leading groups with a clear charge and clear deadlines. Hackman found that a “common recipe for failure” included burdening a group with “a vague purpose, squishy deadlines, and fuzzy success criteria” (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 1992, p. 36). Another crippling factor can be the absence of individuals with key expertise or critical organizational linkages. Failure to include key individuals can severely limit a team’s effectiveness because of missing human capital for decision-making. Another crippling factor can be unclear authority and an unclear mandate. A misunderstanding of group authority for decision-making can cause group members to turn on each other when conflicts arise, give up, or wallow in indecisiveness. A fourth variable that can influence group effectiveness is the history that group members have of working together. If group members have a history of working together effectively, either individually or as a group, the predictability of successful collaborative decision-making is enhanced (Hackman, 1990).

Discussion questions

How would viewing this team from a structural or human resource framework help Mr. Carter in his leadership role?

Which of the structural and human resource variables mentioned by Hackman (1990) are missing from this team?

If Mr. Carter was leading this team using the political frame, what aspects of the situation might he more easily recognize?

If Mr. Carter was leading this team using the symbolic frame, what aspects of the situation might become important?

What could Mr. Carter have done to structure the decision-making process for greater team effectiveness?

Part II

Student discipline for off-campus behavior

Even though this case study is situated in a private school setting, understanding discipline from a public school perspective will facilitate a better understanding of the situation at Peace Academy. The traditional legal principle that undergirds the discipline of a student in a public school is the doctrine of in loco parentis. In other words, schools traditionally have authority to act “in the place of parents” when disciplining students, and law clearly authorizes the state and its agencies to establish and enforce reasonable conduct codes to protect the rights of students and school districts and to ensure school environments conducive to learning. Historically, courts exercised limited review of student disciplinary regulations, and students seldom were successful in challenging policies governing their behavior (McCarthy, Cambron-McCabe, & Thomas, 1998). Courts have been reluctant to interfere with the judgment of public school officials because public education was considered to be a privilege bestowed by the state. However, discipline for student behavior changed dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s when litigation erupted to protect student rights (see Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969). In spite of these changes, judicial developments have not eroded educators’ rights or responsibilities to discipline students (see Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988).

When regulating student conduct in public schools, educational leaders must balance the scope of their authority to discipline students within the context of state law and parents’ and students’ Constitutional rights. Among these rights are the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and the Constitutional right to due process. Due process rights include both substantive and procedural due process. Substantive due process “asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life, liberty or property” (Alexander & Alexander, 2009, p. 506). For example, a student has a due process right to be free from the exercise of unlimited school authority, and a school disciplinary policy will not survive a substantive due process challenge if it is not rationally related to a government interest such as an adverse impact on campus (see Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997). Procedural due process requires that if a person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, a prescribed constitutional procedure must be followed. The Supreme Court identified three requirements for procedural due process: (a) the person must have proper notice that he or she is about to be deprived of life, liberty, or property; (b) he or she must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (c) the hearing must be conducted fairly (Alexander & Alexander, 2009).

Discussion questions

What elements of substantive and procedural due process have been followed by the administrators at Peace Academy?

Are there additional steps that this team should take to ensure that students’ due process rights are protected? If so, what are they?

As we will learn later, students enrolled in private schools forfeit the protection of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Even though students cannot claim a violation of their Constitutional rights, why might it be a good idea for a private school to follow procedural due process in the discipline of students?

The nexus principle

The topic of student discipline for off-campus behavior is not a new one. In the 1850s, an 11-year-old boy in Vermont was punished for using “saucy and disrespectful language” by demeaning his teacher in front of fellow students on a street near his teacher’s house an hour and half after classes were over (Walsh, 2003, p. 13). The court supported the school’s discipline of the student because the student’s actions were done in the presence of other students, and they had the potential to injure the school and cause others to question the teacher’s authority (Walsh, 2003). Though mild by today’s standards, this Vermont case established the long-standing principle that public school authorities can discipline students for off-campus student behavior “as long as (authorities) can show a nexus, or causal link, to the school” (National School Boards Association, 2003, p. 72). In other words, schools have authority to discipline students for behavior and speech if they can establish that the behavior had a detrimental effect on school activities, students, or employees (National School Boards Association, 2003). In addition, schools have the authority to adopt reasonable rules to control student conduct and speech, even when it occurs off campus, if the rules are reasonably related to the order, safety, and discipline of the school.

Courts have upheld school discipline of students who engaged in misconduct off of school grounds. These acts include attending a party where alcohol was served (Bush v. Dassel-Cokato Board of Education, 1990), sexually assaulting another student (Brands v. Shelton Community School, 1987), making offensive remarks about school employees (Fenton v. Stear, 1976), threatening or defaming students or employees on the Internet (S. L. v. Friends Central School, 2000), and composing a letter referring to killing a former girlfriend (Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, 2002). The focus of each of these decisions was whether the district reasonably believed, and could provide evidence, that the behavior was likely to cause a substantial disturbance or that it created a threat of danger at the school.

Conversely, courts will not support discipline when the conduct or speech has no relationship to the school, regardless of how offensive the behavior or speech may be. For example, courts have overturned discipline for a student making a vulgar gesture at a teacher off campus (Klein v. Smith, 1986), testing positive to a drug test that could not accurately test for marijuana use (Anable v. Ford, 1985), and criticizing the school and school employees on a website (Beussink v. Woodland R-IV, 1998). Courts in these cases overturned discipline decisions made by the school because the school failed to meet the “nexus” test. It is important to note that it is the responsibility of the school to provide evidence that the behavior had a negative effect on the school and to establish a nexus, or causal link, between the behavior and a detrimental effect on school activities, students, or employees.

Discussion questions

Given the facts of this situation, do you believe a “nexus” exists between the off-campus behavior and negative effects at school?

If so, if Peace Academy was a public school, what evidence would the school need to provide to support that claim?

Should school disciplinary policies in private schools be written with the “nexus” principle in mind? Why or why not?

School policy

An important consideration for educational leaders is school policy and the communication of those policies to students and parents. Discipline policies have been struck down for being unconstitutionally vague (McCarthy et al., 1998). For example, policies prohibiting “improper conduct” and behavior “inimical to the best interests of the school” have been invalidated because they have not specified the precise nature of the impermissible conduct (see Soglin v. Kauffman, 1969; Wilson v. South Central Local School District, 1995). In addition, for disciplinary actions that involve off-campus behavior to be upheld, school policy must inform students that they are subject to discipline for off-campus behavior. For example, in Galveston Independent School District v. Boothe (1979), a district’s discipline policy in the State of Texas stated that drug and alcohol possession or being under the influence would not be tolerated “in our schools.” Because the policy did not specify that students could be disciplined for marijuana use occurring off campus, a state appeals court in Texas did not support the school’s discipline and set aside an expulsion for off-campus marijuana use.

Laws and policies governing student discipline in public schools vary significantly between states and across different school districts. Consistent notions throughout discipline policies are reasonableness and procedural due process. Individual school districts are typically required to specify types of required or prohibited conduct based upon minimum disciplinary procedures in state statute. District guidelines must also document kinds of discipline that will be imposed for infractions, procedures that must be followed before discipline can be imposed, and the students’ right to appeal discipline decisions. In addition, it is important to note that discipline procedures for students with disabilities are distinctively different and have not been addressed in this case. In summary, general principles governing student discipline policies include the following:

School rules must be reasonable and designed to further the mission of the school (i.e. maintain order and discipline).

All rules should be stated in precise terms and disseminated to students and parents.

Discipline for rule infractions should vary depending on the type of offense and the context in which it occurred.

Students cannot be disciplined for the acts of others.

Due process should be afforded to students before imposing discipline. Although due process requirements vary from state to state, an informal hearing suffices, in general, for minor penalties; to impose serious consequences, more formal procedures are required.

Students can be disciplined for misbehavior occurring off school grounds if there is a connection between the school and the off-campus behavior. It is the responsibility of the school to establish the connection. (National School Boards Association, 2003, p. 76)

Discussion questions

Which of the general principles governing student discipline (listed above) has Peace Academy successfully followed? Which principles are missing?

A chart outlining Levels One through Four violations of the discipline policy at Peace Academy has been provided in Appendix B. This chart outlines only potential consequences for violations of the policy. According to the general principles listed above, what additional details would need to be included in a formally written discipline policy?

What details would need to be included in school policy for Peace Academy to discipline students in this case?

Student rights in private school

Students who enroll in private schools by choice, either their choice or their parent’s choice, have fewer protected rights than students in public schools. First Amendment (free speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) rights do not apply to students enrolled in private schools. In some cases, private school students have rights guaranteed by the constitution or statute of the state where the school is located; however, statutes vary widely across states creating a need for educational leaders to become very familiar with state statues in their respective states. California, for example, has a law protecting free expression at secular private schools as well as public schools (HB-rights.org, 2006). Instead of rights grounded in the Constitution, student’s rights at private schools are determined by a contract that exists between parents and the school. In other words, the rights of students in private schools “rest mainly upon express and implied terms and conditions of their enrollment, as outlined in various documents such as school handbooks, codes of conduct, and enrollment documents” (HB-rights.org, 2006). In private schools, disciplinary actions fall under contractual obligations, and schools are expected to uphold their responsibilities outlined in these agreements. Only in the case where a public school district cannot meet the needs of a student in the district in which he or she lives and subsequently sends the student to a private school, can a student find protection of Constitutional rights in a private school setting.

Discussion questions

A sample of applicable language from the Student Conduct Contract at Peace Academy has been provided in Appendix A. Evaluate the language in the document considering what you know about general principles governing student discipline policies.

This situation takes place among students enrolled in a private school. Are there differences in discipline consequences that Peace Academy can assign and consequences that a public school can assign? If so, what are they?

This case study raises an important issue for consideration. What control should a school exercise over its students? Justify your answer. Are there differences between the control that a public school should exercise and the control that a private school should exercise? Why or why not?

Parents in this case study were upset by varying issues. Some believed that the process of interrogation was unfair, and they threatened to take legal action if discipline was assigned for off-campus behavior. Other parents were upset that students in the school had violated the school’s discipline policy, and they felt that the school was contractually obligated to enforce school policy by keeping the environment “safe.” How should Mr. Carter handle these two groups of parents? What legal obligations must he consider?

Other than legal considerations, what other consequences can decisions made in this case have for Peace Academy? How should Mr. Carter and his team address these issues?

Culminating activities

Bolman and Deal’s (2011) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership outlines four frameworks for evaluating organizational effectiveness: the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. Based on Bolman and Deal’s framework, evaluate this situation using each of the four frames. Explain how using this framework might assist Mr. Carter in his leadership efforts.

Draft an example of a school policy that would meet legal requirements for disciplining public school students for off-campus behavior. Draft a similar policy for use in private schools.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Katherine A. Curry is an assistant professor in the Graduate College of Education at Oklahoma State University. She currently teaches classes in School Administration in the Educational Leadership Program. Formerly, she has experience as a director of curriculum and instruction, middle school principal, headmaster, and high school English teacher.

References

Alexander

M. D.

(2009). American public school law (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Anable v. Ford, 653 F. Supp. 22 (W.D. Ark. 1985).

Bennis

(1997). The secret of great groups. Leader to leader, 1997, 29-33. doi:10.1002/ltl.40619970310

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986).

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1998).

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(1992). What makes a team work? Organizational Dynamics, 21(2), 34-44.

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(2011). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brands v. Shelton Community School, 671 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Iowa 1987).

Bush v. Dassel-Cokato Bd of Ed., 745 F. Supp. 562 (D. Minn 1990).

10.

Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, 306 F 3d. 616 (8th Cir. 2002).

11.

Fenton v. Stear, 423 F. Supp. 767 (W.D. Pa. 1976).

12.

Fleishman

E. A.

Mumford

M. D.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Levin

K. Y.

Korothin

A. L.

Hein

M. B.

(1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245-287.

13.

Fullan

(1999). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-584.

14.

Fullan

(2007). Change forces: The sequel. London, England: Falmer.

15.

Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Boothe, 590 S.W. 2d 553(Tex. Civ. App. 1979).

16.

Gorton

Alston

J. A.

(2012). School leadership and administration: Important concepts, case studies, and simulations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

17.

Goulet

Krentz

Christiansen

(2003). Collaboration in education: The phenomenon and process of working together. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLIX, 325-340.

18.

Hackman

J. R.

(1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988).

20.

HB-Rights.org. (2006). Student rights in private schools. Retrieved from http://www.hb-rights.org/4students/studentprivate

21.

Ivory

Acker-Hocevar

(2007). Successful school board leadership: Lessons from superintendents. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

22.

Klein v. Smith, 635 F. Supp. 1440 (D. Me. 1986).

23.

McCarthy

M. M.

Cambron-McCabe

N. H.

Thomas

S. B.

(1998). Public school law: Teachers’ and students’ rights (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

24.

National School Boards Association: Council of School Attorneys (September, 2003). Off-campus misbehavior: Are your hands tied? Principal Leadership, 4(1), 72-76.

25.

Northouse

P. G.

(2010). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Parker

G. M.

(1990). Team players and teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

S. L. v. Friends Cent. Sch., (2000). WL 352367 (E.D. Pa. 2000).

28.

Soglin v. Kauffman, 418 F2d 163 (7th Cir. 1969).

29.

Stewart

G. L.

Manz

C. C.

(1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48, 747-770.

30.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969).

31.

Waldron

N. L.

McLeskey

(2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 58-74.

32.

Walsh

(2003, May 28). Misbehavior off campus raises issues. Education Week, 22(38), 1-13.

33.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728 (1997).

34.

Wilson v. South Central Local School District, 669 N.E.2d 277 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).

35.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Rittman

A. L.

Marks

M. A.

(2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483.