Abstract
The purpose of this case is to examine the connection between the pedagogical practices of standards and relationships. Although research supports the importance of both practices, current efforts often construct a situation where educators must choose between the two. This perception pits one practice against the other, demanding educators choose a side without first reflecting on the validity of the dichotomy. Instead of forcing a choice between standards and relationships, this case explores alternatives for administrators to construct a more holistic pedagogical approach to learning that begins at the intersection of the two practices.
Case Narrative
Campus Background and Context
Cedar Creek Middle School is a six to eight suburban campus that sits on the outskirts of a major city center. The entire metropolitan area has experienced considerable economic growth and development over the last 10 to 15 years, transforming the town and district to which Cedar Creek belongs from a rural farming community into a suburb. The town’s population has increased more than 50% in response to the decade-long economic shift.
An increase in diversity has accompanied the overall population growth in both the city and the school district. Ten years ago, the district was roughly 60% White, 17% Hispanic, and 23% African American. Those numbers have shifted to reflect a student body that currently consists of approximately 35% White, 27% Hispanic, 30% African American, and 8% Asian. Cedar Creek’s population breakdown is almost identical to the district’s data.
Cedar Creek’s state accountability rating has also changed over the past decade. Prior to the economic boom, the school garnered the highest rating by the state’s accountability rating scale. Last year, the school was deemed “acceptable” by the state, a demotion of two places on the ratings scale. Cedar Creek also failed to meet its Adequate Yearly Progress goals for the first time, and the district has since placed the campus on probation. If it fails to meet Adequate Yearly Progress again for a second year in a row, the school will be deemed “unacceptable” by the state and taken over by the district.
In response to the failures at Cedar Creek and other schools in the district, the school board approved additional support structures for all of its middle schools. One such support is the addition of instructional coaches in the core subjects of English Language Arts, math, and science. These coaches are tasked with the responsibility of providing teachers with materials and support as they work toward aligning curriculum goals with the state’s standards and accountability measures. Weekly collaborative meetings help mediate the implementation of instructional strategies and curriculum resources designed to improve the school’s academic performance.
Tensions are high at Cedar Creek, especially in the seventh-grade math department, which was one of two departments that did not meet expectations on last year’s state assessment. The state’s passing score for the seventh-grade math test was set at 73% last year, and is expected to increase by at least 2 percentage points this year. Cedar Creek’s seventh-grade math score was 71%, whereas its sixth graders scored 74%. The seventh-grade math team feels confident that, with a little extra effort, they can raise last year’s sixth-grade score the few percentage points needed to meet the anticipated accountability expectations.
Collaborative Team Meeting
Aaron, a second-year assistant principal at Cedar Creek, sat down at his desk and hastily opened his email. It was typically the first thing he did each morning when he arrived at the school, but the unusually high volume of traffic on the highway put him roughly 20 min behind schedule. A frantic first-year teacher caught him on the way to his office and asked for help clearing a paper jam in the copier. Looking through the window of the workroom, he could see students arriving early to the campus, and their excited behavior confirmed that it was indeed Friday. He headed out to his morning duty station immediately after fixing the copier so that his presence might help deter any escalation of the students’ behavior. Besides, the time he spent with them before the school day officially started was one of his favorite parts of the job.
By the time the first period bell rang, Aaron already felt behind for the day. He quickly scanned his email to see whether there was anything pressing or immediate. Just then, his phone “dinged” to remind him of a seventh-grade math team meeting in 5 min. Although he did not attend department-level collaborative meetings regularly, this one pertained to the results from the district’s math benchmark test. The school failed to meet the state’s expectation on the seventh-grade state math test the year before, so it was imperative that they pass this year. The district’s benchmark was a good measuring stick to gauge both where the students were in terms of content proficiency and where they could use more direct support.
He met last week with Stephanie, the school’s math instructional coach, to devise an intervention program for the students whose scores they deemed the most concerning. Although he felt prepared, Aaron knew this was going to be a difficult meeting. The seventh-grade math teachers were already nervous about the upcoming test. He would have to make sure he and Stephanie rolled out the intervention in a way that was both positive and constructive.
The conversation spilling out into the hallway from the classroom’s open door let Aaron know the meeting had started early. He checked his phone to make sure he was not late, and walked into the room. Stephanie was already present, along with the three math teachers, David (the team lead), Michelle, and Becky.
“Good morning, Aaron,” Stephanie said smiling. “I hope you don’t mind that we started the meeting early.”
“Not at all,” Aaron replied. “Where are we at?”
I emailed the data breakdown to the teachers last week like we had discussed previously. I asked them to look at their students’ score along with the scores from last year’s seventh grade test. What we’re looking at right now is the comparison between the two sets of data. I asked David, since he’s the team lead, to guide us through interpreting and understanding the comparison.
David took his cue and began, As I was saying when you walked in, we’re not in that bad of shape, all things considered. Two sets of data from the benchmark test stand out almost immediately to me. The first is the number of standards we did not meet as a grade level; there are seven of them. While we missed the same seven last year, there are three previous failed standards that we passed. So, there’s already been some improvement.
Aaron nodded his head in agreement: “That’s good news to see that we’re moving in the right direction, but it is concerning that we seem to be establishing a trend with these seven standards. What are you guys doing to improve those?”
“We fixed the other three,” Becky replied curtly.
“What I think Becky is trying to say is that we decreased from 10 to 7 concern areas,” Stephanie interjected. “We met as a team at the beginning of the year and decided we would focus intently on 5 of the 10 failed standards from last year. As you can see, we’ve succeeded on 3 so far.”
“What specifically was done to focus on the five standards?” Aaron inquired.
David answered, Well, for starters we looked at some professional development offerings on the content of the standards. I sent Michelle to a training on our lowest two standards, while Becky went to a second training that covered three additional standards. They brought back specific techniques and resources that we worked into our lesson plans and instructional practices.
Michelle continued, “We also started a more focused after school tutorial program aimed at our students who consistently scored low on our 3-week assessments. We held the tutorials twice a week in order to maximize student-teacher interactions.”
“Excellent,” Aaron stated. “You guys have been working hard, and it shows. I think it will serve as a good foundation for our next step.”
“What next step?” Becky asked suspiciously.
Stephanie replied, If you breakdown the seven standards in question by individual student, you see that 153 students failed at least one of them. That is roughly half of 7th grade, which would come out to a tutorial group of approximately 50 for each of you. I think that’s too many students to have any positive effect on in a relatively short amount of time. But, if you look at the data breakdown further, you see that only 76 students failed all three of the lowest scoring standards, which is a much more manageable number.
“Manageable for what?” Becky inquired. “Are you suggesting that we ignore the other 80 students who need a little extra help? What purpose will that serve?”
“I understand where you’re coming from, Becky,” Aaron reassured.
We are not trying to “ignore” any of our students, and we would never ask you to do that. I encourage you to keep working with them on an individual basis in order to give them help where they need it. But what Stephanie is talking about is getting a select group of students up to passing on the test. These students have been identified as the most needy, the ones who could benefit from specific interventions.
Becky remained persistent. “What interventions are we talking about?”
Aaron continued, Stephanie and I met last week and determined that these 76 students will be placed in three mandatory interventions groups to meet twice a week during your team planning time. I realize the inconvenience it may cause, but it is only temporary. We only have six weeks until the test to make a substantial improvement on these three standards. Before you comment or ask any questions regarding the intervention format, please let Stephanie explain how it is going to work.
Stephanie began, We’ve divided the population into two groups of 25 and one group of 26 alphabetically. The tutorials will be during team planning time on Tuesday and Thursday since all seventh graders are in electives at that time. We feel it will be easier to pull out students from their electives instead of a core class. Each of you will be assigned to teach one of the three standards in question. You will teach this standard for two weeks to one of the groups. After two weeks, the groups will rotate between the three of you, and you will teach the two-week set of lessons again. Aaron and I designed the interventions this way for two reasons. One, you only have one standard to teach, which cuts down on your preparation. Plus, I have already designed the lesson plans and put together the necessary resources for them. All you have to do is just teach them. Two, by holding the intervention during the school day, we can guarantee the students will be there while freeing up your after school time for your personal tutoring.
“Thank you, Stephanie,” Aaron said. “Now, what questions do you have?”
“Let me get this straight,” Becky shot off. “We are expected to teach randomly assigned groups of students in 2-week chunks, during our planning period, in order to get them to pass the test in 6 weeks.”
“Yes,” Aaron answered. “I understand you’re frustration with losing your planning period. But, like I said, it’s only temporary.”
“That’s not the issue,” Becky replied. “The issue for me has to do with focusing too much on the ‘what’ of teaching and not enough on the ‘who’ or ‘how.’”
“I think I see what you’re getting at,” Stephanie interjected, “but can you explain a little more.”
Becky continued, When we focus on test scores and develop strategies that are designed solely to improve them, we lose sight of the importance of relationships. Who I teach impacts how I teach. I spend the whole year building relationships with my students and their families. I get to know them in a way that helps me personalize my approach to math as much as I can for each student. The content doesn’t change. But just because it doesn’t change does mean every kid learns it the same way. The only way to figure out how each kid will earn a concept is to get to know them, both who they are and how they learn. Only then can I develop instruction that will help them understand the content. But you want to give me a prescribed curriculum with a group of students that may or may not be the same ones I have had all year so that I can teach them. It doesn’t work that way for me.
“The data show that these 76 students are the ones who need the help, but they’re not split evenly between the three of you,” Stephanie interjected. “Otherwise, I think the groups could have been different, that you could have taught your own students.”
What about the data I’ve collected during the year? I think the relationships I’ve established should speak for something. They may not show up the same way as numbers on a test, but I know they’re every bit as important. I know how to encourage my students when they’re struggling and how to motivate them when they don’t want to work. This knowledge is a direct result of relationships.
“We’re not asking you to teach them new material, though,” Stephanie responded. “I’ve put the intervention materials together already, and it consists of simple, yet effective review strategies that anyone can use to help reinforce what has already been taught in the classroom.”
Becky was still not satisfied.
How is that teaching? Teaching is not just communicating information. It seems to me that no matter what the strategy is or materials are used, it still comes down to the relationship between the teacher and student. If there isn’t one, learning can’t happen, no matter how great the material is. I don’t just stand up and tell my kids what I know or how to get the right answer, I learn math with them every year. And we do that through a relationship.
“You make a good point, Becky,” Aaron interrupted.
I agree with you that relationships are important. But we have a very limited amount of time to achieve our goal here. And we’ve got to maximize our efforts to get these students to passing. If we weren’t in this situation, then I think we would be open to other ideas. But we have to pass this test, and we don’t have much time.
“By focusing on the bubble kids to the exclusion of everyone else,” Becky added.
Aaron looked directly at Becky. “I understand how you feel. If you would like to speak more about your specific concerns, please feel free to stop by my office this afternoon.” He turned to face David. “You’re the team lead, David. What are your thoughts about the intervention?”
David paused before speaking.
I think it looks promising. I think if we are successful with two or three of the standards, we will be above the state’s cut off for passing. But . . . I wish you and Stephanie had consulted with us before finalizing the plan.
“I’m sorry. I made the decision to move quickly on this so we could end up with six weeks of intervention,” Aaron said.
David continued, After Stephanie emailed us the data last week, we met as a group of teachers to devise a plan to present at this meeting. We didn’t realize a decision had already been made. We thought the improvements we had made during the course of the year would add merit to our plan. Instead, we have been given a prepackaged curriculum and been asked to deliver it to the students. We were not even included in the planning process. Don’t get me wrong, Stephanie. I appreciate your willingness to lighten our load by giving us the materials. But I have to agree with Becky here. What does it say about our teaching when all you expect us to do is stand up and deliver curriculum that we didn’t have a say in?
Stephanie looked nervously at Aaron who started to speak.
“Just one more thing,” David continued.
I get the standards. I understand their intent in the classroom. But it’s frustrating when they’re used to justify taking away teacher input. It seems that more and more we are being given materials and told how to teach it along with what to teach.
“We’re not trying to take anything away from you,” Aaron replied.
“I know,” David said.
I know you’re trying to get the students to pass the test. I’m just telling you what it feels like to us. We talk a lot on this campus about creating a collaborative environment, and that everyone’s opinion matters and is important. But it seems that every time there is an important decision to be made, we, as teachers, are not asked to collaborate with you guys on it. Instead, we are told what to do. We hear the expectation to develop relationships with our students, and I think most of us pay attention to that. But I think we’d like to have healthy, productive relationships with our administration as well. And when decisions like this are made without our input, it makes us feel unimportant.
“Thank you for your honesty. I want to give you the same opportunity as Becky to share your concerns with me after school, if you wish.” Aaron paused, and then turned to Michelle. “We only have a few minutes left. Is there anything you would like to add to the conversation?”
“What are we doing here?” Michelle asked.
I mean about learning. This whole conversation is about a test. And while I understand its necessity, I question our motives. Basically, it seems like we are going to teach the test for the next six weeks using a system we were not invited to put together. If we are successful and the students pass, does that mean they learned the material, or that they passed a test? If we can attribute the students’ success to the intervention, then what purpose do we serve as teachers?
David added, I think Michelle said what the other two of us tried to say. I want to pass the test, because I know how important it is for the school. But is there another way to go about it? I realize we don’t have much time, but I think it will be worth our while. Would everyone be able to hold another meeting at the beginning of next week to work through this?
Just then, the bell rang to dismiss first period. Becky and Michelle stood up to go to their classrooms. Michelle smiled and nodded at Aaron as she left. Stephanie turned to David and said, “I have a meeting at central office this morning. But when I get back, if you have time, we can work on a potential meeting time and agenda.”
David nodded in agreement and looked at Aaron. “Thanks for helping us work through this. I know it isn’t easy.”
Aaron smiled and shook David’s hand. He left the classroom and returned to his office. He was sure Stephanie would visit with him this afternoon, maybe even before she went to talk with David. What he knew for certain was he had a week to make a decision before the intervention’s launch.
Teaching Notes
Literature Review
Standards and relationships
The purpose of this case is to examine the complex intersection between the pedagogical practices of standards and relationships. Central to the case is the perceived dichotomous nature of the two practices. Because of this binary perception, the two practices are often seen at odds with each other, competing for the resources of the administrator, teacher, student, and classroom setting.
On one hand, standards are recognized as the central framework guiding current state education policy and reform (National Academy of Education, 2009). Standards for core academic subjects serve to specify what students must know and be able to do, as well as establish explicit goals that are measurable, often with standardized tests (Polikoff, 2012). The success of both standards and tests hinges on aligning curriculum and instruction with the standards to effect change in the measurable goals (Roach & Elliott, 2009). Instructional alignment is often seen as the mediating variable between standards and student success, and assessments are used to reinforce content and provide external motivation for teachers to teach the content (Polikoff, 2012).
On the other hand, teaching is perceived as a values-laden endeavor (Brady, 2011). Teachers are social and moral educators who bring with them into the classroom personal values, beliefs, and experiences that affect who they are and how they relate to their surroundings (Cooper & He, 2013). Lovat, Dally, Clement, and Toomey (2011) state that a correlation exists between values development and academic achievement, claiming that “establishing values-rich relationships with students is itself part of effective pedagogy . . . impacting [the] effectiveness of the learning ambience” (p. 34). Osterman (2010) suggests that teachers who form values-rich relationships with students in the context of effective pedagogy elicit greater academic results in students. Supportive pedagogical relationships grounded in values such as trust, care, and reciprocity have a positive impact on students. Students who feel supported by their teachers tend to place a higher value on education, experience more academic success, and expend more effort in class (Fan, 2012; Huan, Quek, Yeo, Ang, & Chong, 2012; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).
A pedagogical false choice
The perception that standards and relationships are pedagogically incompatible forces a false choice onto educators. Allodi (2010) states that the primacy of testing and accountability creates a dualism between the purposes of the social climate and measurable student outcomes. This dualistic view can force educators to choose between a pedagogy focused on performance and outcomes or one focused on interactions and relationships (Margonis, 2011).
The goal of relational-based pedagogy is to move away from “thing-oriented” pedagogy toward one that is more “person-centered” (Margonis, 2011, p. 434). Rather than perceiving relationships as a compilation of distinct and fixed pieces (i.e., teachers, students, transactions), they are thought of as situational and experiential. The language of relational practices speaks in expression and experience rather than explanation, viewing education as intentional relational practice resting on ethical pedagogy, directed toward the uniquely experienced life of the child to support the entire experience (Saevi, 2011). By “focusing on the character of meaningful educational relationships and not on the specific human traits students are said to possess or upon the traits a pedagogy is designed to produce” (Margonis, 2011, p. 436), a relational pedagogy seeks to restore the focus to the relationship as an experience.
The research findings on relational pedagogy do not differ greatly from those of other research foci in terms of concepts and structure. Relational research highlights conflict/behavior (Bernstein-Yamashiro & Noam, 2013; Giles, 2010, 2011a), teacher dispositions (Giles, 2010, 2011b), and student success (Rayle, 2006) as important factors in the relationship. Unlike other research efforts, relational research understands the relationship to compose the entirety of teacher–student interactions and not just a tool or skill that aids in learning. For example, Giles, Smythe, and Spence (2012) insist that students and teachers are always in relationship, that its very presence supersedes any pedagogy or learning. They state that “the ontological nature of the relationship means that the relationship is always-already an integral part of both the teacher’s and the student’s everyday worlds” (p. 223). Teachers and students are constantly in relationships with one another, regardless of the context or parameters of the situation. Whether labeled information providing, instruction, facilitation, guided practice, or mentoring (Beutel, 2010), the teacher–student interaction is always present.
Relationships in the learning process are described as dynamic, requiring freedom of expression and thought (Brady, 2011; Spilt, Hughes, Wu, & Kwok, 2012). Their success in the classroom is tied to the presence and practice of the values previously discussed. Standards are perceived to embody a different and conflicting set of values based on technique, mechanics, and efficiency. These values miss a certain connectivity that is basic to teaching (Giles et al., 2012).
Theoretically, the intent of standards is to provide structures aimed at supporting learning. In practice, standards are often reduced to a policy of test-based accountability, where they are routinely substituted for test items (National Academy of Education, 2009). In other words, the test ends up exerting a stronger influence over instructional practices. Although researchers continue to debate the impact of standardized testing on education, some claim it limits teachers’ abilities to attend to the socio-cultural needs of their students (Au, 2007). The view is that the emphasis on testing establishes “conformity with a set of predetermined standards without reference to the needs of individual[s],” making it difficult for teachers to develop relationships in the classroom (Milligan, 2005, p. 106).
This unfavorable perception of standards is not entirely accurate. The goal of creating common standards is, in part, an effort to establish consistency with regard to learning objectives (Liebtag, 2013). Clear, consistent standards can serve as a vehicle for equity, helping to ensure that all students “in every school have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills critical to success in college, career, and life” (Conley, 2014, p. 3). However, the push toward consistency is not synonymous with reproducible, homogenized, and mechanical curriculum, and instructional practices. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (2011) stresses that although standards “set grade-specific goals, they do not define how the standards should be taught or which materials should be used to support students” (para. 7). Standards do not dictate how teachers should teach; they provide the foundation for content consistency, leaving the specifics of pedagogy for educators to define (Liebtag, 2013; Van Roekel, 2010).
The Common Core State Standards Initiative also recognizes that standards are not a finished product. Although the current standards may reflect the present understanding of essential knowledge and best practices, researchers state that there is still much to be learned (Russell, 2012). Standards are, in some respects, a work in progress. This notion allows standards, such as relationships, to be dynamic and flexible. In addition, standards resist uniformity and homogeneity. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (2011) insists that no “set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety of abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom” (para. 8). Teachers have the freedom and flexibility to account for the varying needs of their students (Liebtag, 2013).
Administrators often face the unenviable task of implementing standards in a way that avoids reducing them to test questions while also not allowing them to supersede relationships. They must balance district expectations and policy mandates with relational, values-driven learning. The perceived incompatibility of standards and relationships pits one against the other, demanding educators choose a side without first reflecting on the necessity of the dichotomy. In their haste to answer the question “what is the starting point of good pedagogy?” educators often assume there can only be one way. Instead of forcing a choice between standards and relationships, administrators can explore alternatives for a more holistic pedagogy that begins at the intersection of the two practices.
Discussion Activities
Concept map/Venn diagram
In small groups or as individuals, determine the central issue of the case. Construct a Venn diagram of the two pedagogical elements in tension at the center of the case—standards and the teacher–student relationship. Place the relevant arguments and salient points made by each participant in each of the corresponding circles as well as where the two intersect. Use the diagram and the following questions to discuss the intersection between the two pedagogical practices:
What is the basis or motivation behind each of the arguments in both circles? Where do each of the participants fit within the diagram—Becky, Michelle, David, Stephanie, and Aaron?
The intersection of the diagram visually represents the central issue of this case—the collaboration and necessity of a pedagogy that is both standards-based and relationally based. From a programmatic standpoint concerning the intervention plan, what could be revised or added to it so that it more closely reflects the middle of the Venn diagram?
How might Aaron facilitate these changes to the intervention plan?
Role-play resolution
The case narrative concludes with an invitation for two of the teachers to visit further with Aaron. The instructional coach plans to meet with him again as well. The intervention program is set to roll out in a week and Aaron must make a decision by then. Use the following prompts to role-play/discuss Aaron’s efforts toward resolution:
Becky is obviously passionate about her relational pedagogy? How might Aaron affirm this passion while helping Becky to begin to construct a more holistic pedagogy? How might he begin to nurture her understanding of standards-based pedagogy without demeaning her relationships?
What are the central issues to David’s concern? How does the “messiness” of relationships and standards play out between teachers and administrators? How might Aaron work with David (and other teachers) to develop a healthier understanding of the intersection between the two pedagogies?
What additional data or information sources can Aaron draw on as he prepares to finalize his decision regarding the intervention? With whom does he need to discuss his future plans? Construct a timeline of Aaron’s next steps over the next week detailing the rollout of the intervention.
Specific issues to address
Although the previous activities were included to allow discussants the opportunity to generate a list of their own educational issues, the case narrative was written with a specific focus on the following topics. The following information, discussion questions, and suggested readings provide a framework for discussion on standards and relationships.
1. The starting point of good pedagogy.
The prominent issue in this case is the perceived pedagogical incompatibility of standards and relationships. Although standards-based reform efforts dominate current education policy (National Academy of Education, 2009), pedagogical relationships are important to academic success in the classroom (Davis, 2006; Fan, 2012). Proponents of relationships as the primary tool for effective pedagogy criticize the systematic and mechanical structure of standardized assessments, claiming they limit the ability to establish teacher–student relationships (Au, 2007; Milligan, 2005). Supporters of standards point out that, although the practice of standardization may limit the practice of relationships, the standards themselves are dynamic and flexible (Conley, 2014). The goal is to provide clear goals for pedagogy, not to restrict and confine teachers (Van Roekel, 2010).
Discussion questions
What is the starting point of good pedagogy? What strengths do standards bring to pedagogy? What strengths do relationships bring? What are the limitations of both elements?
How can educators (administrators and teachers) communicate an alternative to the hierarchical relationship between standards and relationships? How might educators begin to perceive standards and relationships in a way that relies more on dependency and less on exclusivity?
How can educators utilize both standards and relationships in the classroom to focus on the dynamic and flexible nature of pedagogy in an effort to avoid reducing teaching to the mechanics of “teaching to the test?”
Suggested readings
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
Conley, D. (2014). Common Core: Development and substance. Social Policy Report, 28(2), 1-15.
Giles, D., Smythe, E., & Spence, D. (2012). Exploring relationships in education: A phenomenological inquiry. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52, 214-236.
Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation: Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 56-70.
2. Pedagogical relationships.
The case addresses the two most prevalent pedagogical relationships in schools, the teacher–student relationship and the administrator–teacher relationship. The success of schools as learning institutions depends, in part, on the relationship between teachers and learners. Research shows that elements of the social context within the classroom, including the teacher–student relationship, can have a positive effect on student motivation, effort, and academic success (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Fan, 2012; Huan et al., 2012).
Equally important to successful learning is the administrator–teacher relationship. Price (2012) points to the direct effect principals’ relationships have on teacher attitudes, stating that teachers’ attitudes improve when principals establish positive relationships among the faculty. Rieg and Marcoline (2008) note that “relationship building with teachers by principals helps to underscore the adage that ‘all business is personal’” (p. 5). According to Shields (2006), this personal connection between principals and teachers should be viewed as the foundation of the pedagogical relationship. Just as teaching must be built on relationships of mutual respect, so too must leadership “be built on the same foundation . . . demonstrating the importance of relationships and positive interactions” (p. 76).
Establishing relationships built on trust has a positive influence on student learning (Price, 2012), yet the bureaucratic structures of educational administrations can lead to distrust (Tschannen-Moran, 2009). The rational and technical approaches that accompany bureaucracies often result in an overreliance on managerial approaches to school leadership (Shields, 2006). This leadership style negates the personal connection of trusting relationships, ignoring the fact that teachers, like students, must feel a personal connection to the school to be successful (Rieg & Marcoline, 2008).
Discussion questions
Discuss Aaron’s relationships with his teachers. What are the immediate factors that have a direct impact on the relationships? What role does trust (or lack thereof) play in the team meeting?
Discuss Aaron and Stephanie’s approach to the intervention plan. Given the parameters of the situation, evaluate their decision to plan the intervention without the teachers. Discuss alternative solutions for the intervention that could avoid the negative reaction from the teachers.
Rieg and Marcoline (2008) insist that open and constant communications are beneficial and necessary for effective principal–teacher relationships. How would you describe the communication between Aaron and the faculty? What steps can Aaron take to improve the communication between the administration and the faculty?
Describe the teachers’ perceptions of the principal–teacher relationship. How do their immediate behaviors and attitudes reflect and contribute to the situation? How might Aaron, as the principal, begin to change the behaviors and attitudes that are not conducive to building a healthy relationship?
Shields (2006) insists that leaders must focus on the “who, what, when, why, and how of education and educational administration and leadership” (p. 65). Identify each of these components in the relationships and situation of the case narrative. Which of these components are the strongest? Which are the weakest? What steps might Aaron take to improve in these particular areas? How might focusing on these components improve his relationships with the math faculty?
Suggested readings
Price, H. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 39-85.
Shields, C. (2006). Creating spaces for value-based conversations: The role of school leaders in the 21st century. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(2), 62-81.
Footnotes
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.