Inherent Instructional Tensions

• In Event: Authentic Cross-Institutional Partnerships for Leadership Preparation: A Role-Diverse Dialogue About Partnership Initiation

Abstract

For Perspectives, Modes of inquiry, Data sources/evidence, and Scholarly significance, please see above.

Purpose. This paper focuses on core tensions that arose related to the instructional aims of the leadership program. We are drawing the distinction here between the epistemological differences possessed by the university versus district instructors, and the structural challenges faced by the partnership that are the focus of the third paper.

Substantiated conclusions. Bringing partners with divergent goals together generates unique tensions. Most apparent for us were tensions that emerged in the context of curricular co-design and instruction. Continuous improvement lay at the heart of both the university faculty and state agency vision for the program, and was in fact built into the theory of action with district administrator support. The devil is in the details, however, and as curriculum unfolded, a core dilemma—to be managed rather than ever resolved (Cuban, 2001)—became apparent. The local district leaders, from the Superintendent down through the cabinet members (who were the co-instructors), believed strongly that standardized tests were the wrong driver (Fullan, 2016) for candidates’ work with the target population (i.e., LTELs). The university faculty members, hardly fans of standardized testing, nonetheless were driven by the power of cycles of formative assessment, and the need to have benchmark data from which to work. The state agency, meanwhile, was charged with moving the district away from its disproportionality with regards to English Learner students—as measured by state test scores. The ensuing conversations, and related class plans (and aborted plans), revealed unanticipated tensions related to local context and culture that are sure to surface in authentic partnerships.
A second, related tension further involved the approach to continuous improvement. The program focused on LTEL/EB student success. The district task force on ELs had a list of recommendations, involving among other things increased talk time for students. Early on, instructional choices had to be made between deploying the candidates to spread the implementation of the task force recommendations, versus the albeit slower process of inculcating the habits of mind of inquiry. On the one hand, focusing on one “intervention”—such as talk time—would likely win faster gains for LTELs, our ultimate goal. On the other hand, teaching the candidates how to engage in informed research of their practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), in order to determine what interventions to employ, held the promise of future leaders able to tackle other problems as they arose. This, too, proved a dilemma to manage with a both/and district approach across innovations (of which the leadership preparation program was only one).
A third instructional tension involved the assignment of candidates to interim administrative positions. The district was pouring resources into preparing these candidates, and wanted to assign from this group when openings appeared. One might argue that such a clinical placement during preparation is ideal. At the same time, the university faculty were aware of students’ overwhelm, managing coursework, the state assessment, and new administrative positions, as well as intra-group tensions across new roles.

Author

• Jennifer Goldstein, California State University - Fullerton