The previous chapters set forth the idea of building leadership capacity in schools and presented three examples of schools at different stages of development. Whenever a new concept enters our professional lives, no set of explanations can satisfy all of our curiosities or answer all of our questions. Because we will each come to the idea with different experiences, assumptions, and perceptions, understandings will vary. This variance in understandings will be widened by the lack of opportunity for conversation. In this chapter, I have attempted to anticipate some of your questions. Many of these questions have been asked by participants in workshops, conversations, and classes. You may find some of your questions here, as well.

Once again, what do you mean by “leadership capacity”?

“Leadership capacity” refers to broad-based, skillful participation in the work of leadership. The work of leadership involves attention to shared learning that leads to shared purpose and action. In schools, increased leadership capacity means that the principal is one leader—and a very important leader. But he or she does not fill all or even most of the leadership roles in the building.

How is leadership capacity different from shared decision making?

Shared decision making is one aspect of leadership capacity. But learning in schools is about more than decisions. It is about our daily work together—reflection, dialogue, inquiry, and action. This work involves new roles and responsibilities that reframe all of our interactions together, not just those at decision points.

You've chosen five critical features of leadership capacity. Why these five?

These five features (broad-based, skillful participation; inquiry-based use of information to inform decisions and practice; roles and responsibilities that reflect broad involvement and collaboration; reflective practice and innovation as the norm; high student achievement) are firmly tied to school improvement and student achievement. You may have recognized that the fifth feature, high student achievement, is both a dimension of collaborative work (teaching and learning for children) and an outcome. Together, these features form a dynamic relationship; no one or two features will result in high leadership capacity or high student achievement. It is a case of the sum being greater than the parts.

Is the goal that every educator become a leader? If so, why?

Yes. Leaders are perceived as consummate learners who attend to the learning of both adults and children—including themselves, of course. This is what it should mean to be a professional educator. It does not mean that all leadership work will look the same. While some educators will chair committees and facilitate large-group meetings, others will focus their energies on implementing peer coaching, team teaching, conducting collaborative action research, and demonstrating reflective practice.

Some teachers do not see themselves as leaders—and do not want to see themselves as leaders. How do I work with them?

By redefining leadership as constructivist learning, teachers are more able to find this work congruent with their work with children. Some teachers will take on several leadership roles; other may wish to accept fewer or more modest roles or tasks. In a setting that encourages leadership, it is a rare teacher who will entirely resist this opportunity.

Why do you insist on using the therapeutic term “codependency” in reference to relationships in school?

Codependency refers to dependence on one another to reinforce immature roles and uses of power and authority. It is an apt term for the entangled, traditional relationships in schools that have kept educators from growing. Without broad-based leadership, the ability of a school to grow and become better for children is limited.

We know a lot about how children learn. Why can't we just implement what we know?

We haven't been able to implement what we know. Sometimes, going from A to B is not the shortest route. We now know that unless teachers are learning together, they will not be able to create engaging learning experiences for children. Using that understanding will open a door and allow many other ideas and skills to be implemented.

Is there a tension between inquiry and innovation?

Yes. Genuine inquiry tends to produce home-grown solutions. Innovation sometimes means finding a good program elsewhere and inserting it into the school. Best practices that have been carefully researched can be very useful to a school. When inquiry leads a school to realize what is needed, a survey of promising practices can produce a program that is well suited for the school. Broad leadership allows the administration and faculty to blend, adapt, and adjust practices to fit that particular school.

Our school is considered successful, yet minority students are doing poorly. Where do we start?

You start by having a thoughtful dialogue among school community members (including parents) to understand the current situation. This dialogue needs to consider the disaggregated data that led to the conclusion that minority students were not doing well. Participants will need to confront their own assumptions about which groups of students can learn and under what circumstances they learn best. The next step is to work on the practical tasks that will make the school truly successful. (Chapters 3–5 contain some suggestions.)

How does all of this fit in with the movement toward a standards-driven system?

As I have noted, leadership capacity is an essential element of any reform. The key issue with a standards-driven system is how the standards were devised and who decides how they are to be implemented. Standards that are collaboratively designed and implemented by using (1) the expert knowledge of school staff and community members and (2) the findings of best practice can evoke commitment and competence from all concerned. Even if the standards are externally imposed, the school staff can determine how they will be applied or adapted in that school's particular situation.

Why are changing roles so central to the work of building leadership capacity?

Changing roles grow out of changing self-perceptions; and, in turn, new roles provide “spaces” in which individuals can redefine what it is to be a teacher, parent, student, administrator. New roles are accompanied by new perspectives and responsibilities. As roles evolve, members of a school community reach a point of collective responsibility—a condition demonstrably linked to high student achievement.

What do you mean by responsibility?

I prefer the term “responsibility” to “accountability”. Responsibility involves an internal commitment to self-improvement, the improvement of others around us, and the school community at large. Accountability, on the other hand, has tended to mean that we are being “held accountable” by some outside authority. Accountability measures often mitigate against the development of responsibility, because external demands can evoke compliance and resistance.

You've given a lot of attention to communication and information systems. Schools are closely knit places; can't we just talk with each other?

“Talking with each other” is often random, erratic, and dependent on personality. An information and feedback system needs to be consciously planned and implemented to ensure that frequency and quality of communication are more nearly the same for everyone. “Quality” here refers to respectful listening, asking essential questions, giving and receiving specific feedback.

I think I'm an effective teacher (and my principal and colleagues seem to agree), but I work best by myself. How will I fit into the “new order”?

Adults, like children, have different preferred learning styles. It is important that learning alternatives exist that honor all styles. However, it is also important that adults work to expand their learning style repertoire in order to engage with all learners collectively. Part of the reason that I recommend results-oriented conversations is to attend to the frustration felt by some adults when they are caught up in open-ended discussions and conversations. As stated earlier, some teachers will accept more leadership responsibilities than others—and no teacher should be coerced into a role that makes him or her very uncomfortable.

With all of this involvement in the work of leading, isn't the classroom being neglected?

Because student achievement is firmly connected to the adult learning and leading behaviors recommended here, building leadership capacity is not a diversion but a necessity. It is also important to remember that expanding leadership roles takes two forms: (1) taking on additional tasks or functions and (2) behaving more skillfully in daily interactions (e.g., asking questions, listening, provoking, giving feedback). The latter form doesn't take more time; it merely reframes how we do what we already do.

Isn't there a danger in attempting so much involvement outside the school?

Well, yes. But there is a greater danger from too little involvement outside the school. Schools need to help create congruent contexts (user-friendly communities and districts) in which to function, broaden feedback loops for self-renewal, and develop opportunities for professional development. Isolated school environments contribute to ingrown, self-indulgent solutions. As educators develop, they naturally assume more responsibility for the broader community and the profession. Such expanding responsibilities will not occur if outside opportunities do not exist for each faculty member.

In a district that says to the principal, “The buck stops at your desk,” do we have a chance at building high leadership capacity?

When a district uses a narrow, hierarchical approach to accountability, the work before you is much more difficult. A district needs to change its accountability system from being dependent on a person to being dependent on the school community. The establishment at each site of a broad-based inquiry system that will incorporate both self-evaluation and self-renewal is vital and complex (sometimes this is called “lateral accountability”). Yet, as we have seen in the Capricorn High School story, a school can go a long way toward shared responsibility if the principal is willing to make new roles and responsibilities explicit to all concerned.

Aren't you underplaying the role of the principal?

On the surface it may seem that way. Actually, as I noted in Chapter 2, the role of the principal in building leadership capacity is more demanding and complex than the old work of telling and directing. However, the principal now shares the spotlight with teachers, parents, students, and other community members—acting more as a choreographer than a prima ballerina.

You seem to be recommending that teachers become political mediators, right?

Teachers are already political mediators. By this I mean they seek to influence those in key decision-making roles in order to get things done. They influence the principal, curriculum directors, assistant superintendent and superintendent, parent community, school board, and community groups. When they don't find the means or mechanisms for doing this personally or in small groups, they may work through their unions or associations. Working in the classroom, the school, and the community involves working with information, power, persuasion, and influence. I am just suggesting that the mediation work become more focused and skillful . . . and collaborative.

What are the district policies that are critical for building leadership capacity?

Districts need to continually review policies to make sure those policies are truly supportive of the instructional program in classrooms and schools. Some guidelines for analyzing and testing policies appear in Appendix D. Underlying these guidelines is the conviction that school districts themselves must become constructivist learning communities—using, promoting, and facilitating the reciprocal processes that are advocated for schools.

With broad-based leadership and collective responsibility, aren't superintendents and school boards losing control?

Yes, they are losing one form of control—the form that stifles sustainable development. A new form of control emerges, one that invests itself in learning and long-range results. This new form requires that superintendents and board members let go of the need for daily predictabilities, narrow objectives, the development of “knee-jerk” policies, self-indulgence in crisis, and a paternalistic stance. As I noted in Chapter 6, this is not to suggest a hands-off approach, but rather an approach characterized by high engagement and low bureaucratization. Superintendents and school boards play an important role in a district with high leadership capacity. They continue to provide oversight, they are even more involved in the life of the district, but they resist the temptation to impose quick change through top-down mandates and fiats.

We seem to spend a lot of energy “retraining” our teachers and administrators after their preparation in universities. Why can't university preparation programs be more effective in the first place?

Universities suffer from the same maladies as schools. Change is difficult. Adequate feedback systems for informing universities about their successes are rare. And there is no agreed-upon definition for “success.” Many universities define success as the number of scholarly publications produced by faculty.

Among the most promising practices for colearning among institutions is the Professional Development School. Further, universities can teach specific strategies, familiarize students with alternatives, evoke and support social justice values, and create the disposition for broad-based leadership.

What should be the role of universities with K–12 schools?

Both institutions desperately need external feedback loops that will improve the quality of programs in each. Because the Professional Development School is intended to focus on preparation of new educators and whole school change, there are many roles that faculty from schools and universities can fulfill. University faculty can serve as members of school research and development teams, site councils, and leadership teams and act as critical friends and coaches. In turn, the university needs to reframe entrance requirements for students, to host teachers as critical friends and visiting faculty, and to translate what they learn from schools into improved programs and curriculum.

This seems all too complicated. Can ordinary teachers and principals understand it and use it?

Never underestimate the capacity of people to understand and use ideas that are congruent with their desire for learning.

If we all take these ideas to heart and implement them, how soon will we have excellent schools?

If you focus your attention on building leadership capacity in schools, within 18 months you will notice major dispositional shifts among almost all involved. By the second year major structural changes will be underway. And by the end of the second year you should notice changes in student academic performance (improvements in social behavior will come earlier). Considering that the educational lore says that it takes 3 to 10 years to improve a school (and, of course, it does), building leadership capacity with constructivist strategies can be surprisingly efficient!

These are just a sampling of questions and issues that people might raise about the concept and practice of leadership capacity. Other provocative questions are posed in a Study Guide that is published on the ASCD Web site (http://www.ascd.org).