AERA annual meeting

Citation

Ross Thomas, A. (2007), "AERA annual meeting", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2007.07445eaa.001

AERA annual meeting

Thanks to Emerald Publishing I attended the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Chicago during March 24-28. The theme of the meeting was “The world of educational quality”. “World” was appropriate in more ways than one and the large international attendance added substance to this theme.

I was delighted to be accompanied by the journal’s Publisher, Joe Bennett, who was able to participate in several of the sessions and presentations. Because of the failure of one session organiser to confirm my participation, I was unable to contribute to any of the “Journal talks” sessions. More sturdy steps will be taken regarding next year’s meeting! Likewise, it is hoped that Emerald Publishing will be able to secure a more prominent stand in the exhibitors’ hall.

The conference exceeded last year’s (short-lived) record attendance with well in excess of 15,500 participants contributing to over 2,400 sessions. Multiple venues ensured all participants were well exercised in moving from session to session although, for an Australian, the frozen footpaths (sidewalks) and biting wind were rather dispiriting.

Again, publisher and editor were extended the courtesy of the AERA press room and for this we extend our thanks in particular to Helaine Patterson and Lucy Cunningham who steered us expertly to several of the outstanding conference sessions. Although not all of these were specific to educational administration and leadership, most were of concern and interest.

In particular, I appreciated (from the perspective of one interested in a range of educational research methods) the significance of the session “How large-scale data sets can address causal questions in education: guidance from a new AERA report”. The occasion witnessed the launch of Estimating Causal Effects Using Experimental and Observational Designs (by Schneider, Carnoy, Kilpatrick, Schmidt and Shavelson). To this editor’s eyes this appears a significant publication and a valuable contribution to research methodology. The journal will, in the near future, publish a review of the book.

Of particular (but not exclusive) interest to all American educators are the outcomes of the nation’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). On all five days of the conference papers addressed many aspects of the Act. The two I was able to attend provided challenging insights into this potentially momentous legislation. As is one of the prime purposes of educational research, questions such as challenges in state-level implementation; the contribution of state testing programs to NCLB; intended and unintended consequences of NCLB; and can NCLB improve access to highly qualified teachers? Next year’s meeting in New York will undoubtedly make further provision for examining this milestone in American education.

The difficulty of coinciding sessions of equal appeal requires one to adapt to AERA in philosophical vein: one just can’t attend all the sessions worthy of participation. It was no exception for this editor in Chicago. Nevertheless, I was able to attend several informative, challenging and (it must be admitted) sometimes frustrating presentations. Of these I appreciated in particular “Findings from the survey phase of the International Successful School Principals Project”. It was a delight to listen to representatives from the USA, UK, Australia, Sweden Denmark, Norway, and Hong Kong as they reported their findings. Other aspects of the project have, of course, previously been reported in the Journal and further reports will follow, perhaps as a thematic issue.

The international influence was also clearly in evidence in “School leadership in schools that fail”. Contributors to this fascinating session were from the USA, Sweden, Germany, Australia, Denmark, Norway, the UK and New Zealand. In view of the almost-global demand for schools to meet mandated standards, it is not surprising to witness the emergence of research into this increasing concern. It is also worthy of note that in the first issue of the Journal next year (Vol. 46 No. 1) we shall publish a closely-associated article by Joseph Murphy – “The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from organizational recovery in the public and private sectors”. This will be the forerunner of much more research on schools that are “not making the grade”.

Two presentations that I was unable to attend are, nevertheless, worthy of acknowledgement. The first, “Alternative perspectives on distributed leadership”, featured five papers addressing the increasing interest in this form of leadership. Nowadays “leadership” comes with many adjectives so much so that one may be excused at times for developing a degree of cynicism about the relevance and value of such for school administrators. Distributed leadership does appear to offer a more optimistic outcome for both scholars and practitioners. The journal, in this belief, will publish a thematic issue, “Distributed leadership: different perspectives”, in Vol. 46 No. 2, 2008. Guest Editor will be Alma Harris, Professor of Education at the University of Warwick. Two of the presenters in this session at AERA will contribute to the special issue.

The second session that I had to forego was “Craft of reviewing manuscripts for journals: building skill and learning through the process”. During the session awards were made for outstanding AERA reviewers. Perhaps closer scrutiny of reviewing (or refereeing) manuscripts is overdue for attention. Mentioned during the annual meeting of the journal’s Editorial Advisory Board was a recent contribution to this area by Stanley in AERA’s Educational Researcher (Vol. 36 No. 1, 2007) – “When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial review process”. The process of review is important, if not critical to those involved in research. Continuing investigation of the practice is essential.

Editorial Advisory Board

During the AERA program the annual meeting of the journal’s Editorial Advisory Board was held. There was an excellent attendance with several countries represented. Matters of importance to the future of the Journal were discussed including the maintenance of its international philosophy, how to encourage and assist authors whose first language is not English, acceptance rates, future thematic issues, electronic processing of manuscripts and so on. Several changes to policy and operating procedures were determined. I thank those who attended and note (with no small degree of pride) just how many of the EAB were also presenting papers at the conference.

This issue

The first three articles in this issue of the journal report research conducted in schools and of these the first two introduce and elaborate new concepts developed in situations in which socio-economic status of schools and communities is seen to exert limited influence.

In our first article James, Dunning, Connolly and Elliott note the general acceptance of a link between a school’s effectiveness and the socio-economic status of its pupils: high levels of socio-economic disadvantage have a negative influence on pupil attainment. But such is not always the case and in this article the authors report on 18 primary schools in Wales where pupils achieve high levels of attainment in national test scores in spite of experiencing substantial socio-economic disadvantage. There are several characteristics common to these schools threaded through which is a particular way of working – collaboration on a clearly defined main task grounded in reflective practice. The authors name this way of working “collaborative practice”.

Primary schools also provide the basis for our second article in which Smith and Hoy report their investigation of a general construct called “academic optimism”. Using 99 elementary schools in Texas, USA, as their data source, the authors test hypotheses linking this construct to student achievement. Multiple regression and factor analysis (with controls for school socio-economic status) confirm that academic optimism is a second-order construct comprised of collective efficacy, faculty trust, and optimism. Moreover, academic optimism is a school characteristic that predicts student achievement regardless of socio-economic status.

Although most teachers find their work extremely satisfying many researchers acknowledge that teaching is a stressful occupation, an occupation that demands “immense amounts of emotional labor”. One element contributing to stress is a heavy workload. In our third article Timms, Graham and Cottrell report their study of approximately 300 teachers in independent (private) schools in Queensland, Australia. In particular, the authors investigate the matches (or mismatches) between teachers and schools on six areas of worklife. Among the many important findings to emerge are that teachers (when compared with norms for the instruments used) report significantly higher matches in the control, community, fairness and values areas of worklife, no difference in reward, but significantly more mismatch with workload, higher levels of exhaustion, and working long hours in order to fulfil obligations.

The following three articles move from school to university-level and two of these address preparation programs for teachers and school leaders.

Rideout and Morton first report on a study conducted in a university in Ontario, Canada. Approximately 720 students enrolled in a pre-service teachers’ program completed comprehensive questionnaires to establish their demographic and experiential backgrounds and to gauge their philosophical orientations to education. In particular, the authors sought to establish whether there is a link between these variables and pupil control ideology (PCI). Correlation and multiple regression analyses establish that demographic and experiential variables are predictive of PCI but the most predictive variables are those contained within the philosophical “cluster”. The study thus provides empirical evidence of the link between what beginning teachers feel about education and their approach (at the beginning of the teacher education program) to pupil control in the classroom.

The increasing use of the internet is leading universities to rely more and more heavily on technology in both the delivery and content of courses. The use of distance technology in delivering and improving school leadership is the specific focus of this exploratory study by Sherman and Beaty. Representatives of 49 UCEA member institutions responded to a survey designed to indicate how and why technology is used in program delivery. Although descriptive, the findings of the study are illuminating and provide insights into the types of program structures and distance technologies and goals for the use of such. Also detailed are the problems experienced and the factors affecting the expansion of distance technology.

In our final article O’Meara and Petzall examine the social characteristics and demographics of Vice-Chancellors in Australian universities during the period 1960-2000. The study follows closely the pioneering work of Sloper who investigated the characteristics of Australia’s Vice-Chancellors from 1963-1993. Data were collected via public domain sources, questionnaires to current and past office holders and other university officials and supplemented by interview. Among many informative findings the authors note that, for example, professional qualifications and experience of VCs have changed significantly; most VCs are still Australian or British born; the career route is now taken through the roles of Deputy and/or Pro Vice-Chancellor; the tenure rate has diminished considerably; the role of VC is no longer the final “destination” of increasing numbers, more of whom are seeking second Vice-Chancellorships; and women have begun to appear in the ranks of VCs but still not in proportion to their number in the population

Three book reviews complete this issue.

A. Ross Thomas