AERA Annual Meeting

Citation

Ross Thomas, A. (2008), "AERA Annual Meeting", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 46 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2008.07446eaa.001

AERA Annual Meeting

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Educational Administration, Volume 46, Issue 5

Thanks once again to Emerald Publishing’s generous support and encouragement I attended the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York during 24-28 March.

The theme of the meeting was “Schools, neighbourhoods and communities: Toward civic responsibility”. This was a theme that elicited numerous, relevant presentations, not only within the auspices of Divisions A (administration, organization, and leadership) and L (Educational Policy and Politics) but within most of the other Divisions as well. Within the ambit of Division A the conference theme found expression, for example, in sessions such as community-based leadership for educational reform; leadership creativity and innovation in turning around low-performing schools; organizational culture and change; organizational and school effects of parent involvement; issues and trends in family involvement in schools; and politicising parent involvement. A particularly apposite Division L session addressed School governance and family-school-community interactions.

Most obvious among the Division A sessions were papers addressing leadership (mostly, but not entirely, from the principal’s perspective) as well as other aspects of the principalship (and, to a much lesser extent, the superintendency). The place of charter schools continued to generate interest among Division L participants as did school choice and, of course, many manifestations of educational policy development and implementation. Two sessions in particular exposed participants to a range of challenging perspectives on “alternative” schools. The first of these – market-based school governance structures: the role of politics, economics, community, and democracy in evolving choice models – included four insightful papers. Of these, “Partners, rivals, managers, and profiteers: a typology of educational privatisation” by Scott and Di Martino of New York University was particularly illuminative. The second noteworthy session (held, unfortunately, on the Friday afternoon of the conference and thus did not attract an audience commensurate with its substance and import) was entitled expanding the analysis of charter schools: a closer look at achievement, efficiency, access, and voter preferences.

Always of interest to this Editor are the sessions reporting international (i.e. non-American) educational research. Although, not as numerous perhaps as in previous years, sessions directed at women leading across the continents; forging a collective identity for educational leadership around the world (Division A); international issues in higher education policy; education in the People’s republic of China; and Education in Sub-Sahara Africa (Division L) identified a variety of practices (and problems) existing beyond the shores of the USA. A most noteworthy session, which continued the work of last year’s conference, was conducted by a Special Interest Group, – Learning and Teaching in Educational Administration. The findings from Stage 2 of the International Study of the Preparation of Principals were presented by scholars from the USA, Australia, UK, Turkey and Canada.

As Editor of the Journal of Educational Administration (JEA) my attendance at the Annual Meeting of AERA enables me to participate in several activities specifically related to the process of academic publishing. On this occasion, I was invited to participate in a meeting of the Council of Editors which enabled me to “rub shoulders” with many editorial colleagues and to discuss several aspects of contemporary publishing. I also directed a “round table” in one of the Journal Talks sessions at which I was accompanied by our Book Review Editor, Tony Normore. This session provided us the opportunity to describe the process of publication in the journal, to meet authors who had published in the journal, and to encourage prospective contributors to develop and submit manuscripts.

This year’s conference provided yet another record attendance with approximately 16,000 scholars and practitioners participating. As was the case last year in Chicago, the magnitude of the conference required an extended venue and to this end four large hotels in New York were fully engaged. (The absence of any Chicago-like weather patterns made mobility between venues a simpler and less-taxing experience!).

I was delighted that the journal’s Publisher, Kate Snowden, was able to participate in the conference. It was a valuable opportunity for me to confer with her on journal matters. Kate also conducted the Emerald Publishing stall in the Exhibition Hall for three days. She plans a bigger and better Emerald display at next year’s meeting of AERA in San Diego!

Again, both Publisher and Editor were extended the hospitality and courtesy of the AERA press room and for this we extend our thanks in particular to Helaine Patterson and Lucy Cunningham. The facility of the press room is of great value enabling prompt notification of special presentations and developments throughout the conference as well as opportunity to meet press and publishing representatives from near and far. Already (May, 2008) two manuscripts have been submitted to the journal as a result of press room meetings!

Editorial Advisory Board

Because the Annual Meeting of AERA attracts a great number of international scholars it is an ideal time in which to hold the Annual Meeting of the Journal’s Editorial Advisory Board. On this occasion members from five countries attended and participated in discussions on many of the journal’s activities. Some changes to policy and operating procedures were determined, statistics for the previous year’s volume (Vol. 45) were analysed and themes for future special issues were considered.

I thank all members who participated in the Annual Meeting as well as those who apologised for their inability to attend. Again, I note with pleasure and pride that all Board members were involved in one form or another in paper presentations throughout the conference.

This issue

Six articles appear in this issue of the journal contributed by Australian, American and Nigerian authors.

The first article, jointly authored by Ewington, Mulford, Kendall, Edmunds, Kendall and Silins, is a further outcome of The International School Principalship Project. This same team of authors contributed an article to the preceding issue of the journal “Successful principalship of high-performance schools in high-poverty communities” and will publish their third article in this series in the first issue of the journal in 2009 (Vol. 47 No. 1). Readers will recall the thematic issue of the journal devoted to the ISSPP that was Edited by Jacobson, Day and Leithwood (Vol. 43 No. 6, 2005). This has been a most productive and illuminating international study and the JEA is proud to have been able to report so extensively on the project.

In their article, Ewington et al. report on a survey of principals of small schools (population of 200 or fewer students) in the Australian state of Tasmania. The study confirmed that contextual demands result in role conflict for teaching principals and that principals of small schools are mobile and spend relatively brief periods of time at any one school. Significant differences emerged between principals in small rural schools of 100 or fewer students and small rural and urban schools with enrolments between 101 and 200 students. The authors suggest that these differences are attributable to the “double load phenomenon” (teaching and administering the school) and the incessant, mandated requirements to implement increasing amounts of Department of Education Policy.

Successful principals are also at the core of the second article contributed by Crum and Sherman. The authors set out to investigate the leadership and instructional practices of principals in a sample of successful high schools in the state of Virginia, USA. Analysis of intensive interview data identified the daily practices of principals that foster an environment supportive of high-student achievement. Noteworthy among such were developing personnel, facilitating leadership throughout their schools, delegating to and empowering teachers, facilitating instruction, and managing change.

The Australian state of Queensland is the context for Cranston’s report on the use of cases in the development of leadership in principals. The document Leadership Matters, released by the state department of education, supplemented by an extensive review of literature relevant to cases and their use, provides the theoretical framework for Cranston’s research – a major part of which involved the development of cases and their implementation. The paper contributes further to the literature supportive of the case method particularly in view of the principals’ ready acceptance of such “real world” stories and the constructive and challenging discussions that accompanied each.

Principals’ satisfaction with their schools (PSS) is the focus of the following paper by Friedman, Friedman and Markow. The study reported was conducted in 29 school districts across the USA. Data, supplied by over 400 principals, were categorised broadly as districts’ characteristics, demographic variables of the principals, and indices of school satisfaction. About 11 reliable indices of PSS were identified. After controlling for district and demographic variables, the authors identified negative student behaviour, involvement in decision making, and equipment and facilities indices as significant predictors of PSS.

Another state, Western Australia, provides the setting for Pepper’s and Wildy’s study into curriculum implementation and school leadership. In particular, the authors report on how education for sustainability is conceptualised and incorporated across the secondary school curriculum. Teachers who were reputedly leading education for sustainability provided data for the study. In general, it was found that the concept of education for sustainability was not widely embraced by schools, it was fragmented and vulnerable to changing school conditions, and leadership for sustainability occurs whimsically and with little vision for the future.

In the final article, set in Nigeria, Ikoya reports on his study contrasting the influences of centralisation and decentralisation of school districts on the availability, adequacy, and functionality of physical facilities in schools. Information was obtained from a wide spectrum of contributors – principals, teachers, parents, community members, Board members – in both kinds of districts. One finding that should have importance for Nigerian education is that decentralisation throughout a school district appears to improve the availability, adequacy and functionality of physical resources. An implication is that decentralisation is a more efficient method of managing schools’ infrastructure, promoting accountability, and reducing corruption by officials.

A. Ross Thomas