Transforming the Currency of Educational Leadership into Cultural andSocial Capital as Transformational Leadership RoSusan D. Bartee, PhD University of Mississippi ABSTRACT ‘What we know and what we must be able to do’ remains a simply stated, yet complex endeavor for the educational system of leadership in 21 st century schools. The currency of educational leadership and its capacity to exchange into effective educational leadership become indicative of what transpires within the context of schools irrespective of the backgrounds of students and stakeholders. In effect, transformational leadership uses the R2 of resources as cultural capital and relationships as social capital to produce the results of a transferable model of leadership practices for 21st century schools. Key Words: transformational leadership, cultural and social capital ‘What we know and what we must be able to do’ remains a simply stated, yet complex endeavor for the educational system of leadership in 21 st century schools. The ‘what we knows’ of leadership are grounded in theoretical constructs that offer frameworks for understanding multi-faceted dynamics of educational leadership. Theoretical constructs of educational leadership are based upon historical and contemporary perspectives, demonstrating how leadership functions within institutional roles and relationships, as well as individual behaviors and boundaries (Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Howell & Costley, 2006). The ‘what we must be able to dos’ of educational leadership are practical, evidence-based approaches used to address emerging issues or emanate challenges in school contexts. Particularly, given the era of NCLB, educational leaders subscribe to empirically-based practices for achieving desired student outcomes. In many ways, the successful integration of theory and practice is exemplary in transformational leadership, given its capacity to foster selfless commitment toward a collective cause irrespective of critical differences between the stakeholders and the cause being served. The transferable currency or embodied capital of transformational leadership, in essence, demonstrates how “our [educational leaders’] role goes beyond the bounded organizational context and extends into the wider social context within which schools are located and from which our students come” (Shields, 2006, p. 64). Accordingly, this conceptual paper on transformational leadership for 21st century schools examines how traditional models of leadership inhibit the capacity to change or recreate school contexts. It also examines how transformational leadership uses the R 2 of resources and relationships, with resources as cultural capital and relationships as social capital to produce a transferable model for leadership practices for 21st century schools. 85 Conceptual Perspectives on Educational Leadership as Policy and Practice: 21st Century Schools and Capital Forms The role of leadership is fundamental to the administration and governance of organizational contexts. Hoy and Miskel (2008) suggest the following definition of leadership: Leadership is a social process in which a member or members of a group or organization influence the interpretation of internal and external events, the choice of goals or desired outcomes, organization of work activities, individual motivation and abilities, power relations, and shared orientations. Moreover, as a specialized role and social influence process, leadership is comprised of both rational and emotional elements with no assumptions about the purpose or outcome of the influence efforts. Leadership or, rather, the effectiveness of leadership is linked to the influence occurring on macro- and/or micro-levels. From the macro levels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy and procedures to the micro-levels of interactions and interests of students, parents, teachers, and other primary stakeholders, educational leadership becomes the symbiotic representation of people, policy, and precedent. The process-oriented nature of leadership positions it as being more complex than an educational system, based upon inputs and outputs. Fundamental assumptions of traditional leadership, nonetheless, posture leadership as an organizational function which is both rational and technical in its conception and projection (Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Shields, 2006; Cline & Necochea, 2000; Fullan, 1999). More specifically, Day (1990) indicates how “power with versus power over” becomes a challenge for top-down approaches of leadership (p. 58). Such assumption negates consideration about the impact of institutional or organizational factors upon individual attainment or performance outcomes. Other fundamental assumptions of traditional leadership indicate a focus on inherited values and human nature (Gorton & Alston, 2009; Fairholm 2000). Such assumptions emphasize subjective components of leadership driven by personality and not the demands of the position. Recognizing the significance, status-quo theoretical perspectives of traditional leadership become critical to understanding the implications of transformational leadership within 21 st century schools. A fundamental question in this discussion on leadership practices for 21 st century schools is: What are 21st century schools? The role of 21st century schools is to prepare students holistically in cognitive, affective, and social ways to meet societal demands (Helm, Turckes, & Hinton, 2010; Rotherham & Willingham, 2009; Manthey, 2008; Hardy, 2007). Thematic implications of knowledge, skills, and dispositions become the shared characteristics of the holistic approach to achieve desired outcomes. Bassett (2005) situates 21 st century schools as espousing a leadership vision for proficiency, fluency, multicultural literacy, and high-quality performance for students in various areas. Proficiency is represented in the type of curriculum; fluency is represented in areas beyond technical competencies into the non-technical areas of leadership, decision-making, and ethics; multicultural literacy is inclusive of those individuals who are familiar with the history and experiences of diverse groups, and high-quality performance involves commitment to extracurricular activities (Bassett, 2005). The leadership vision is inclusive of those non-academic, un-traditional, and in-formal factors which exclusively impact the educational process. A synthesis of these major components can be found in Waterman’s (2009) report, 21st Century schools: A world class education for every child. The report, issued by the Great Britain Department for Children, School, and Families, provides a 86 description of the features of 21st century schools based on standards and stakeholder responsibilities, individually and collectively. A graphic description of these components appears below. On an individual basis, the illustration suggests that 21 st century schools require specialized curricular and pedagogical approaches to enhance the teaching and learning process. On a collective basis, the graphic indicates that standardized approaches for teaching and learning from the realms of educational policy and practice must be established. Conceptions of diverse forms of capital, nonetheless, become useful for understanding the role of 21st century schools and their capacity to effect transformative change. Bartee and Brown (2007) assert the following: “Distribution of capital in home and school settings affects the types of educational outcomes and the quality of lifelong opportunities individuals are able to enjoy” (p. 1). In essence, capital is valuable in meaningful ways, unique internally and externally to the school context. The form of cultural capital consists of “acquired knowledge that stems from affiliations with particular traditions” (Bartee & Brown, 2007, p. 53). Cultural capital is essentially acquired through the academic curriculum provided by the schools and the nonacademic experiences provided by the home. The form of social capital is comprised of networks and associations through which access is made available (Bartee & Brown, 2007; Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu, 1990; Coleman 1988). Social capital is acquired as a human resource which personal or professional relationships offer. In light of NCLB, the policy and practice of educational leadership demand strategic and deliberate approaches to attain accountability and achievement without compromising the integrity of the student learner. Elmore (2003) indicates the need for a shared approach toward leadership among system-level administrators to address macro- and micro-levels involving school improvement; five parameters are suggested for consideration: 1) Internal accountability precedes external accountability…Educators are usually people to whom things happen, not people who make things happen. (p. 9) 2) Improvement is a developmental process that proceeds in stages; it is not a linear process…We learn in part by tearing down old preconceptions, trying out new ideas and 87 practices, and working hard to incorporate these new ideas and practices into our operating model of the world. (pp. 9-10) 3) Leadership is a cultural practice…Leaders understand that improving school performance requires transforming a fundamentally weak instructional core and the culture that surrounds it into a strong explicit body of knowledge about powerful teaching and learning that is accessible to those who are willing to learn it. (p. 10) 4) Powerful leadership is distributed because the work of instructional improvement is distributed…Schools that are improving seldom, if ever, engage exclusively in role-based professional development, that is, professional learning in which people in different roles are segregated from one another. Instead, learning takes place across roles. Improving schools pay attention to who knows what and how that knowledge can strengthen the organization. (p. 10) 5) Knowledge is not necessarily where you think it is…Most of the knowledge about improvements is in the schools where improvement is occurring, and most of those schools are, by definition, schools with a history of low performance. (p. 10) These views regarding school improvement efforts mirror characteristics of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is not status quo: “Followers become leaders and leaders become change agents and ultimately transform the organization” (Hoy & Miskel, 2009, p. 448). Traditional leadership maintains the status quo. Transformational leadership is not stagnant, but comprised of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, the four I’s (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Traditional leadership reproduces similar outcomes. The intersection of educational leadership and diverse forms of capital within 21st century schools provides the framework for examining the implications of currency of exchange leadership for transforming school contexts. Intersection of Transformational Leadership and Cultural Capital An important uniqueness about 21st century schools and their leadership practices is the shared focus on knowledge and the inherent value it possesses. Knowledge is either considered academically-generated (school) or non-academically-generated (experience). Irrespective of the source, acquired knowledge informs capacities to think, reason, analyze, and decide. In both cases, transformational leaders understand the need for diversified curricula toward improving student outcomes (Sanchez, 2003; Wagner et. al, 2006). Such (non)academic knowledge becomes a resource of cultural capital for students and currency valued within the (ex) change of educational leadership. Diversified curricula prepare students with the requisite cultural capital to be informed about legitimate content matters acquired from school. Sanchez (2003) asserts the following: “…academic programs must compel students to go beyond memorizing a hodgepodge of facts. Schools must help students become independent learners who think…apply their knowledge, reflect on their learning...schools must help our children create, find…overwhelming amounts of knowledge and information...” (p. 31). There is a clear recognition of the need to be informed about traditional content knowledge which, in essence, aligns with the rational, traditional approach of leadership toward maintaining status quo. What becomes different, however, is the approach taken in the dissemination of the knowledge. Bass and Riggio (2006) view transformational leadership as intellectual stimulation that encourages the delivery of content and 88 pedagogical realignment for teaching and learning. More specifically, “Transformational leaders stimulate followers to be innovative and creative by questioning old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs; reframing problems; and approaching old situations in new ways” (Hoy & Miskel, 2008, p. 447). Diversified curricula demonstrate the value of experiences acquired within the family context as an acceptable form of knowledge. This type of (non)academic knowledge is to be integrated into the learning process as a venue for bridging the knowledge gap between the home and school. Neuman (2010) states the following: High quality programs often involve students in project-based learning experiences that give them opportunities to discover and reflect on phenomena in their real worlds and communities…Such activities give voice to students’ need to engage in productive and meaningful work. (p. 33) Consequently, this approach authenticates the experiences of students from diverse backgrounds which often get marginalized in the larger societal context. Bass and Riggio (2006) offer a second dimension of transformational leadership that promotes individualized consideration with its focus on the holistic needs of the students involved. Hoy and Miskel (2008) advance this assumption as illustrated in the following: “Individualized consideration means that transformational leaders pay particular attention to each individual’s needs for achievement and growth” (p. 447). In many ways, the leadership model exemplified by Capital Preparatory Magnet School in Hartford, Connecticut demonstrates how the cultivation of cultural capital becomes a manifestation of the vision of building a community of change agents as espoused by the visionary Dr. Steve Perry (Capital Preparatory Magnet School, 2010). The mission of Capital Preparatory Magnet School is identified as “a year round college preparatory school designed to engage students in social justice themes exploring issues of equality, democracy, economic opportunity, intellectual freedoms, environmental protection and human rights” (Capital Preparatory Magnet School, 2010). The focus of using knowledge as a form of social justice informs the thought processes of the students and its stakeholders. Given that one of the major graduation requirements is a research-based social justice project where students are required to explore a problem through data collection and analysis, where students gain meaningful practical experiences based upon their capacity to transfer their curricular, theory-generated model of becoming skilled information processors, collaborators, empathetic and knowledgeable citizens, and problem solvers into something meaningful (Capital Preparatory Magnet School, 2010). Consequently, it is not surprising that Capital Preparatory Magnet School is being touted as one of America’s Best High Schools, and its currency and capital transfer into sending every graduate to a four-year college. Capital Preparatory Magnet School is transformational leadership in action. Intersection of Transformational Leadership and Social Capital Another characteristic of 21st century schools and their leadership practices is the mutually reciprocating element involving relationships between institutions and individuals. Like knowledge, (non)traditional skills are acquired through academic or nonacademic experiences which provide technical competencies to perform a given task. The quality of relationships, 89 however, gets forged based upon the capacity at which the task involved is considered to be acceptable or valued by the other party. Transformational leaders recognize the need for establishing relationships with multiple stakeholders who may or may not fit the status quo (Hoyle, 2001; Wagner et. al, 2006). Such un-traditional skills become useful in relationships affording social capital for students and currency valued within the (ex) change of educational leadership. The relationships established between the educational leaders and respective internal and external stakeholders offer more access and opportunities for students to be involved. Walser in Manthey (2008) indicates 21st century skills as the following: “critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, written and oral communication, creativity, self-direction, leadership, adaptability, responsibility, and global awareness” (p. 15). From an internal perspective, these are skills which need to be developed within the context of the relationships between the student and teacher, student and administrator, and the student and other students. While traditional leadership considers relationships as naturally evolving around personal interests, transformational leaders consider internal relationships as goal-oriented and, therefore, investments must be made in different ways to forge trust and buy-in. In transformational leadership, idealized influence, the third dimension, serves as a motivating force to be part of something greater and larger than the individual self (Bass & Riggio, 2006). “Idealized influence builds trust and respect in followers and provides the basis for accepting radical and fundamental changes in the ways individuals and organizations do their work” (p. 446). From an external perspective, the relationships of social capital as established or inherited by the educational leader, provide the venue to encourage involvement in extracurricular activities. Extracurricular activities prepare students with skill sets that prepare them for life in different ways. Sanchez (2003) asserts the following: School must also help our children develop into well-adjusted individuals who can thrive in a world that is increasingly characterized by difference, diversity, and rapid change. Our children must be able to easily navigate this world of difference if they’re to succeed…Finally, if our children are to be prepared to succeed in this 21 st century world and, in fact, to transform it into a good place in which to live and work, they must be both socially and environmentally responsible; they must be team players of our communities and society. So, we must help our children develop the communication, interaction and civic skills to live in a world that is high touch as well as high tech: a world that is characterized as much by interdependency as by diversity. (p. 32) Extracurricular activities become the gateway for students to gain social capital and to get a first-hand understanding about the importance of relationships and the skills in them. The fourth dimension of transformation in the Bass and Riggio (2006) model, inspirational motivation, encourages individuals to be involved because of their capacity to make a difference. “Transformational leaders energize people by projecting an attractive and optimistic future, emphasizing ambitious goals, and creating idealized visions for the organization and clearly communicating to followers that the vision is attainable” (Hoy & Miskell, 2008, p. 447). Many of the tenets of the transformational leadership model are demonstrated within the vision of the Harlem Children’s Zone and the visionary Mr. Geoffrey Canada. The Harlem Children’s Zone identifies best-practice programs for children of every age, through college. This program illustrates the fundamental principles of helping students, in a sustained way, to have access and start as early as possible to create a network of people who understand what it takes to 90 achieve (Harlem Children’s Zone, 2010). Social capital is embodied within this transformational leadership approach since it integrates a (non)traditional skill of relationship building and network access as part of its curricular approach. Through the cultivation of social capital, the idea is that students will be surrounded with access to human resources who offer systems of enduring support and quality information until a tipping point is reached (Harlem Children’s Zone, 2010). The transformational leadership within the Harlem Children’s Zone shows how significant concern for the follower’s beliefs and values are critical toward sustaining the buy-in and inspiration of the followers, as well as the capacity to generate results. Such efforts have received national attention from President Barack Obama as he encouraged the creation of "Promise Neighborhoods" across the country, based on the comprehensive, data-driven approach of the HCZ Project (Harlem Children’s Zone, 2010). Harlem Children’s Zone is a unique intersection of social capital and transformational leadership as a twenty-first century school. Conclusion In this literature review, there are several implications of transformational leadership for 21 century schools. The conceptual perspectives on transformational leadership offer a useful framework for examining nontraditional ways of approaching “what we know” and “what we must be able to do.” The four I’s, as articulated by Bass and Riggio (2006), influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, need to be integrated within the context of school in order to foster a teaching and learning environment where all students can be successful. The integration of capital forms and transformational leadership is unlike traditional forms of leadership, given its focus on expanding access to groups who are non-traditional, who do not fit the status quo, and who do not have privilege to quality networks and informational sources. Simply stated, what 21st century schools must know and be able to do is understand how the currency of transformational leadership is transferable into infrastructural capacities which generate cultural and social capital and thereby can be used as a mechanism for improving educational outcomes for students and stakeholders alike. st References Bartee, R. D., & Brown II, M. C. (2007). School matters: Why African-American students need multiple forms of capital. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Basset, P. F. (2005). Reengineering schools for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75-78. Bourdieu, P. (1984). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Capital Preparatory Magnet School. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.capitalprep.org Cline, Z., & Necochea, (2000). Socialization paradox: A challenge for educational leaders. International Journal Leadership in Education, 3(2), 151-158. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Day, C. (2000). Beyond transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 56-59. 91 Elmore, R. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 6-10. Fairholm, G. W. (2000). Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management to its spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer. Gorton, R., & Alston, J. A. (2009). School leadership and administration: Important concepts, case studies, and simulations. New York, NY: McGraw & Hill. Harlem’s Children Zone. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project Hardy, L (2007). The skill set: What do graduates need to be successful in the 21st century? American School Board Journal, 18-20. Harris, J., Turckes, S., & Hinton, K. (2010). A habitat for 21st century learning. Educational Leadership, 66-69. Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hoyle, J. R. (2001). Administering learning environments in the twenty-first century. Theory into Practice, 250-254. Manthey, G. (2008). Attaining 21st century skills in a complex world. Neuman, S. B. (2010). Empowered—After school. Educational Leadership, 30-36. Sanchez, F. (November 2003). Skills for a knowledge-based economy. Educational Leadership, 30-33. Schmoker, M. (2008/2009). Measuring what matters. Educational Leadership, 70-74. Ohm, K. (2010). Practicing leadership. Educational Leadership, 32-34. Rotherham, A. J. & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership, 16-21. Sanchez, F. (2003). Skills for a knowledge-based economy. Leadership, 30-33. Shields, C. M. (2006). Creating spaces for value-based conversations: The role of schools leaders in the 21st century. Leadership and Management, 34, 62-81. Umphrey, J. (2010). Toward 21st century supports. The Education Digest, 48-53. Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., Howell, A., Rasmussen, H. T. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Waterman, C. (2009). The 21st century school—at the heart of the community. Education Journal, 114, 32-33. Author RoSusan D. Bartee is Associate Professor, Department of Leadership and Counselor Education, School of Education, at the University of Mississippi. 92