Faithful Presence”: The Christian School Head, Personhood, Relationships, and Outcomes

This article was downloaded by: [Covenant College], [Jack Beckman]On: 19 September 2013, At: 11:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School Choice: InternationalResearch and ReformPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsc20

“Faithful Presence”: The ChristianSchool Head, Personhood, Relationships,and OutcomesJack E. Beckman a , James L. Drexler b & Kevin J. Eames aa Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, Georgia, USAb Department of Education, Covenant College, Lookout Mountain,Georgia, USAPublished online: 27 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Jack E. Beckman , James L. Drexler & Kevin J. Eames (2012) “Faithful Presence”:The Christian School Head, Personhood, Relationships, and Outcomes, Journal of School Choice:International Research and Reform, 6:1, 104-127, DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2012.650096

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2012.650096

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15582159.2012.650096

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2012.650096

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of School Choice, 6:104–127, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1558-2159 print/1558-2167 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15582159.2012.650096

“Faithful Presence”: The Christian School Head,Personhood, Relationships, and Outcomes

JACK E. BECKMANCovenant College, Lookout Mountain, Georgia, USA

JAMES L. DREXLERDepartment of Education, Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, Georgia, USA

KEVIN J. EAMESCovenant College, Lookout Mountain, Georgia, USA

Designed as an exploratory study, this article represents an ini-tial explication of the world of the Christian school head, anunderresearched area of school leadership. Primarily drawingupon a small purposive sample of respondents in the field, theresearchers used qualitative interviewing to develop a narrativedescribing the complexities of Hunter’s (2010) construct, “faithfulpresence.” Under this emergent theme, the personhood and essen-tial relationships out of which the Christian school head works werealso explicated. Finally, the complexities in managing the mul-tidimensional understandings of Christian school outcomes wereexplored.

KEYWORDS professional identity, transformational leadership,moral leadership, school mission

BACKGROUND AND STRUCTURE

Research literature generally concedes that school heads are essential tothe development of school climate, instructional effectiveness, and studentachievement (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Fullan, 1991, 1999; Partlow, 2007),however what that impact is and how it is operationalized, is not as cohe-sive or understood. Moreover empirical studies such as those done byOgawa and Hart (1985) and Hart and Ogawa (1987) have made provisional

Address correspondence to Jack E. Beckman, 307 Lee Avenue, Chickamauga, GA 30707,USA. E-mail: jbeckman@ covenant.edu

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

“Faithful Presence”: The Christian School Head 105

connections between student achievement and school head tenure. Laterstudies (Partlow, 2007) have sought to make this connection more rigorous.School head turnover leads a school toward instability in its culture andhas ripple effects through the various structures from instruction to disci-pline and mission and vision (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Howeverthe majority of literature regarding school leadership is situated in the pub-lic school context; little in the way of empirical research describes the lifeand work of the Christian school counterpart. This exploratory study repre-sents an attempt to enter the world of the Christian school head, portray thecomplexities of faithful presence (Hunter, 2010) with respect to personhoodand essential relationships, and perceived academic, spiritual, and culturaloutcomes in the Christian school.

The extant literature in the field typifies educational leadership inthe public sector as one fraught with contestable attributes (Goldring,Porter, Murphy, Elliot, & Cravens, 2009; Krüger, Witziers, & Sleegers, 2007;Robinson, 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). Questions of the direct or indirectimpact of school leadership on student outcomes and teacher quality, ormodels of effective leadership as being managerial, instructional, or transfor-mational lead to tenuous connections at best. The meta-analysis by Robinsonand colleagues (2008) leads one to believe that the impact on student out-comes, though indirect on students, is a function of mission and visiontransferred to instructional practitioners from a model of leadership that isnot centrally transformational but focused on instructional leadership.

The indirect effects, however, are not insignificant. Hallinger and Heck(1998) organized what they termed “intermediate variables” into four cate-gories or domains: vision and goal setting, organizational structure and socialnetworks, human capital, and organizational culture.

In this conceptualization, there is a re-emergence of the transforma-tional aspect of leadership whose effects and impact, though indirect, areessential to the culture and mission of the school. For example, in thefirst domain, the more tangible the educational leader makes the goals,mission, and vision of the school to constituents, a general enhancementof school effectiveness may occur. In the second domain, the impact oftransformational leadership as it functions collaboratively in a culture ofshared decision-making and problem-solving has been shown to be keycharacteristics of effective schools (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).

What is frustrating is that there is little to no correlative research inthe realm of Christian school leadership. We rely upon models from thepublic sector which do not explicate the unique attributes of leadership orthe theological aspects of the vocation. Certainly insights emerge from theextant literature—emphasis on mission and vision, collaboration, instruc-tion, school culture—and illustrate the complex world of the school leader.However, the particular life and work of the Christian school head is verymuch under-researched.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

106 J. E. Beckman et al.

A key theme of the study involved an explication of Hunter’s constructof faithful presence:

. . . a theology of commitment and promise. The commitment is“covenantal.” It is a binding obligation manifested in the relationshipswe have, in the work we do, and in the social worlds we inhabit, and itis oriented toward the flourishing of the world around us. (Hunter, 2010,p. 261)

Although this construct is not merely definitional to the life and workof the Christian school head, it does begin to unfold a model that mightbecome a clearer and more cohesive conceptualization which confirms theplace of transformational leadership in the Christian school.

Toward a Theology of Faithful Presence in Christian SchoolLeadership

The focal text of the Cardus Education Survey, James Hunter’s (2010) ToChange the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in theLate Modern World, contains the germ of a provisional theological scaffolddescribing the under-researched world of the Christian school head. Thisconstruct, “faithful presence,” portrays an overarching theme for this studyand offers a theoretical and organizational structure for the study as a whole.

Hunter (2010) makes no ostensive reference to Christian schools ortheir heads in his book and yet its resonances with this cultural institutionsound deeply and profoundly.1 As a microcosm of applied Christian faithin a fallen world, the Christian school finds itself working out of certaincontested paradigms of cultural engagement. Hunter, with acknowledgmentto Niebuhr’s (1951/1996) classic Christ and Culture, posits three archety-pal postures toward cultural engagement the Church and by extensionthe Christian school, have taken—defending against, relevance toward, andpurity from (pp. 214–219). Finding these insufficient, he purports anotherposition, that of faithful presence. Hunter does not proffer a succinct defini-tional treatment of faithful presence but progressively reveals its design andcontours throughout his book:

If, indeed, there is a hope or an imaginable prospect for human flour-ishing in the contemporary world, it begins when the Word of shalom2

becomes flesh in us and is enacted through us toward those with whomwe live, in the tasks we are given, and in the spheres of influence inwhich we operate . . . this is the heart of a theology of faithful presence.(2010, p. 252)

As to our spheres of influence, a theology of faithful presence obligatesus to do what we are able, under the sovereignty of God, to shape the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


patterns of life and work and relationship, that is the institutions of whichour lives are constituted, toward a shalom that seeks the welfare not onlyof those of the household of God but of all. (2010, p. 254)

Neither steeped in withdrawal from the world nor exhibiting a naïvetriumphalism, Hunter manages to steer a course which demonstrates apotential guide of cultural engagement. Life and work are seen as redemp-tive vehicles enacted by faithful stewards who labor for “unfolding theunrealized potentialities of the created order”3 in the sphere(s) of influencein which God has called and placed them. This unfolding is articulated ashuman flourishing and fulfilling of shalom in a world that is shared evidenc-ing a plurality of beliefs, needs, and opportunities. Hunter deems this astenable faithful presence. For the life and work of the Christian school head,faithful presence is applied in the interactions, tasks, and spheres of influ-ence operating in the school and wider community. The present explorationasks what faithful presence of the school head looks like and what impactit has on the person and work of the school head and academic, spiritual,and cultural outcomes of the Christian school. Thus “faithful presence” is theessential theme under which the project is situated.

METHOD

Purposive Sample4

Wengraf (2001) described various modalities of sampling for qualitative inter-viewing, one of which is the purposive approach, which seeks to “selectinformation-rich cases for in-depth study” (p. 102). Within this category afurther level of sophistication is described and is comprised of “multipleand partial viewpoints voiced and synthesized” (p. 105). Here we note thecontrasting perspectives of those who underscore the selected demographicof participants, those with serial tenure, consisting of heads of school withbetween 2 and 5 years of experience and have had four or more head lead-ership positions. This sample group was made up of nine members, sevenmale and two female. The second sample group, those with long tenure,consisted of heads of school with over 25 years of experience with oneposition in head leadership; a group also made up of nine members, sevenmale and two female. This dual axis approach fulfilled our desire to selectthose heads of school based on number of years of experience and numberof positions, a demographic whose dependent variables were highly diver-gent based on the data from the quantitative element of the study. Of thecomplete potential sample number (n = 18), 13 respondents completedthe interview, seven from the serial tenure group and six from the longtenure group. It is noteworthy to add that only one female responded tothe interviewer’s initial prompts via e-mail and telephone and this from theserial tenure group. See Table 1 for summary.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


TABLE 1 Summary of Purposive Sample Group

Potential Actual

Group One—Serialtenure

N = 9 (7 males, 2 females) N = 7 (6 males, 1 female)

Group Two—Long tenure N = 9 (7 males, 2 females) N = 6 (6 males)

In a study of this small scale, the introduction of a nonprobability sam-ple is derived from researcher-targeted groupings. There is no claim torepresent a wider population, but merely to characterize the experiencesof those located within the qualitative sample (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,2000).

The Semistructured Interview Guide

The structure of the interview guide was broadly modeled after Kvale’s(1996) process typology in which an introducing open-ended question isused to stimulate the respondent’s narrativizing function (memory, experi-ence, and language resulting in “story”) and subsequently contextualizedthe interview event around the purposes of the encounter (pp. 133–135).A short series of follow-up questions were then offered in order to movethe respondent toward the key focus questions. Because there were twogroups of interviewees, those with serial tenure and those with long tenure,each guide was annotated with specific questions to that particular group aswell as general questions asked to both groups. These target questions wereenvisioned as ones which would cohesively engage the respondent basedupon their perception of experience as head of school as well as satisfyingthe requirements of the implicit theory questions. See Appendix for a copyof the interview guide.

The Interviews

Time and resource constraints made telephone interviewing a necessity(Shuy, 2001). Moreover, as there were two interviewers, it would be criticalto ask the same questions for the sake of reliability; thus the formal interviewguide and taped interviews with subsequent transcriptions for data analysiswas a standardized model. Each interviewer followed the script of the inter-view guide, and yet was sensitive to the novel, spontaneous, or surprisingdirections respondents took as they engaged both question and questioner(Plummer, 2001; Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Seidman, 2006).

Each interview was recorded electronically, transcribed, and then ana-lyzed. After transcription by an outside source, the recoded interviewerswere actively compared to the written transcriptions for adjustments andannotations for accuracy. These adjustments were noted as aides memoirand/or anecdotal records in the margins or within the text.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Analysis: Listening to the Voices and Making Sense of the Data

What became evident to the researchers was the very personal nature of theinterview process to the respondents even as themes, categories, ideas, andthoughts began to emerge from the conversations. One respondent from theserial tenure group remarked:

Having done a graduate degree, I think I know where this is going . . .

You are going to write up a research report with some quotes to back upyour ideas, but I am asking you not to lose my story in a fancy analysisof data. This is my life you are talking about, warts and all. When I sharemy stories, I hope you will listen to them and not just take notes as if Iwasn’t there . . . (Long tenure 3, male)

Balancing the tensions of the researcher’s data-gathering purpose torespondent narrative sharing was purposed to respect both sides of the inter-view (Schostak, 2006, pp. 135–136). One way of checking on this was to takethe transcribed interviews and simply look at the lines of narrative notingwho is doing the most talking—interviewer or respondent. This method isa simple way to gauge the narrative density of the interview event as beingfocused on the stories of the respondents or the needs and purposes of theinterviewer (Beckman, 2004). There is no universal method to completelysatisfy this balance, but researcher reflexivity demands exposing its tensionsto the reading community (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000; Etherington, 2004).

Each transcription was taken on its own merit in order to honor the par-ticularities and content of each story given. However, as continued readingsoccurred, numerous consonant themes became clearer and more cohesiverelative to the data and content of the transcripts. “Patterned regularities”projected out of “unruly data” became directive in the analysis (Wolcott,1994, p. 33).

Analysis: Explicating Faithful Presence in Light of the InterviewAnalysis

The focal lens of the study, faithful presence of heads and outcomes ofChristian schools, provoked readings of the data around two major emergentthemes of analysis, and elicited six subthemes which elucidated the variousexperiences of respondents in the interview sample. The construct of faith-ful presence was rooted in both personhood and relationships enacted andfulfilled in their perceived vocation as a school leader. These two sensitizingconcepts flowed out of the qualitative data analysis and acted to expand thelarger construct of faithful presence into smaller categories for discussion.As a person, presentation of self, sense of calling, and professional identityeach served to illustrate the intricacies of the very personal and professional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


facets of all too fallible yet well-meaning educational leaders. Regardingrelationships, the multiple contexts, avenues of authority, and complexityof roles describe the multifaceted world traversed by the school head as aseries of contexts in which faithful presence was enacted. Latterly, what doesthe Christian school head perceive as the academic, spiritual, and culturaloutcomes envisioned in their school context? In what ways does their faithfulpresence impact the ostensive purposes, mission, and vision purported bythe Christian school?

This second aspect—outcomes—was the narrative spoken of by manyof the respondents, and principally developed out of their own lived expe-riences in schools and perceptions of role and relationship. The exploratorystudy sought to be selective amongst a number of under-researched areasinto the life and work of heads of Christian schools. After the interpretivesection, a general discussion of the impact of the themes upon the perceivedoutcomes of Christian schools is given.

Interpretation

PERSONHOOD

The first major theme that rose consistently out of the analysis wasEducational Leader as Person. The essential self-disclosure of the exerciseof interviewing exposed this element across the analyses of data. Whatoccurred during the interview event was “someone expressing somethingabout himself/herself,” in a classic narrative discourse which uncovered toa certain extent the significantly personal nature of a professional vocation.The written transcript merely crystallized literally what was expressed orallyby many respondents. One respondent expressed:

There are many “me’s” . . . and when I talk about my work asHeadmaster, I can’t help but feel what I do on the deepest level ofwho I am. The patterns of the school year are in my blood. . . . I seeGod at work in my school through me—one limited person—in all myweakness and failure . . . and some of the good I do also. (Serial head 5,male)

A further analysis provoked other subthemes, no less significant, butserved to more richly describe the lifeworld of the head. The personhoodof the head may consequently be subsumed into three other related sen-sitizing constructs: the educational leader’s presentation of self , sense ofpersonal calling, and understanding of professional identity. Each subthemeis considered below.

Erving Goffmann (1959) demonstrated the sociological importance ofhow persons present themselves to others and how that presentation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


was adapted and modified depending on the social groups with whichinteractions occur. Thus presentation of self moved on a sliding scale fromcontext to context. According to Goffmann, persons desire to be affirmed,accepted, or welcomed in certain contexts and thus adjust their “presenta-tion” accordingly. For heads of Christian schools, this typically took on formsof structures of confidence, ability, and service. To the extent that presenta-tion of self was positive and well-received in meaningful contexts, as wellas offering some sense of control over that context, the head’s sense of selfwas maintained and not threatened. That this was problematic will be seen,particularly in the case of those in the serial group.

For those in long term leadership, the following discourse becametypical and significant:

I have learned, you know, to just be myself whether I am dealing withparents, teachers, or students. I learned long ago that you can get caughtup in all the stories you tell or the [different] ways you are around dif-ferent groups. It’s just best to be honest and straightforward. You can’tbe all things to all people and survive this job . . . Isn’t being a differ-ent person everywhere you go a definition of schizophrenia? (Long termhead 3, male)

Stability and consistency in the presentation of self was significant forthose in long tenure, and whether due to temperament or transparency,aided heads in navigating the many contexts that the school involves.Ricoeur (1994) commented on this stability of identity as one which repre-sents “sameness” (ipse) as well as expressing a dynamic movement of growth(idem) as the person presents the narrative self in discourse (pp. 118–119).Conversely, several examples in the serial group attested to the impact ofinstability in the presentation of self:

I am a people-pleaser and have always worked for the applause, youknow. It works out great when everybody is on the same page, butwhen things get confusing or conflict comes up, I. . . . get lost and don’tfunction well. My pattern is that after about two years, I can’t keep up theappearance anymore and because of problems, you know . . . conflictson the Board, with parents, student discipline problems, disappointedteachers. . . . it’s time to go. (Serial head 7, male)

The school world reality the serial head inhabited may present itselfin deleterious and anxiety-producing ways, ways in which the school headis incapable of overcoming. Because of this, choices for the serial schoolhead may narrow and become tenuous; for those who evidence a securepresentation of self, more energy may be devoted to the mission of theschool and its ongoing work without an overwhelming sense of impendingfailure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


A sense of personal calling moved the discourse into a more explicittheological realm of meaning and action. Here we noted the head’sresponses to the directedness of God in their vocational life and work.Vocational calling is a theological construct used to explain and defendone’s sense of listening and obeying God in both broad and specific ways.According to Wolterstorff (2002), God’s broad “calling to us is to serve himobediently in the world, devoting ourselves to the good of our fellows”(p. 128).

In the widest sense, God’s calling is toward a significant commitment,which is according to Wolterstorff, “a differentiated, articulated, particular-ized call . . . in light of our talents and training, the needs of the church,and the state of society” (p. 128). Each of these ideas in the problematic andpotential nature of calling may be found expressed in the life and words ofschool heads.

Note this very real struggle in making decisions as to God’s call fromthis serial head:

Now in terms of the, you know, making that discernment . . . it’s likeanything else when you try to determine God’s will. Jacob wrestling withthe Angel of the Lord, you know, praying about it and thinking about itand looking at this opportunity and getting a sense of peace. And I triednot to look at just what was opportune. In fact, I turned down a muchhigher paying position at a different school because it just wasn’t right.It just didn’t feel right. (Serial head 5, male)

Another serial head saw his calling as that of visionary with the work of:

. . . starting schools from the beginning. I love to create new things andcan get bored easily . . . It is a weird niche to fill, but I think God usesme to get things going, you know? So I stay five years or so and then . . .

off to the next project. It can be hard on my family though. . . . . (Serialhead 6, male)

The complex interplay of factors which were used to determine andconstruct understandings of being in a chosen context belied numeroustheological and practical elements of the perceived outworking of sense ofcalling

An understanding of professional identity revolved around themes ofvocational preparation and training, experience, and a developing percep-tion of the “head of school self” which moved on a trajectory toward stabilityand growth over time. Partially this construct typified the head’s identifica-tion of competence through professionalism. A sense of professional identityis made up of identity claims as a head and then attaching particular qualitiesof actions and values to those claims (Cohen, 2008, p. 84). Of particularinterest here were the perceptions of those with long tenures. In general,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


the level of understanding of professional identity becomes clearer over timeand experience with terms such as “stability,” “longevity,” and “commitment”being descriptive of their perspective:

I see myself as a well-trained educational leader, you know . . . I havethe degrees and training and experience, so I use that to my advantagewhen I am working with different groups . . . It’s like I am saying, “Hey,I know what I’m talking about here.” (Long term head 1, male)

One school head clearly rooted an understanding of professional iden-tity in the recruitment and hiring of instructional practitioners. In thisaspect, the educational leader was responsive and responsible for discerningthose teachers who demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions whichultimately reflected back on the professionalism of the school head:

Anytime you have stability in the administration of the school, it pro-vides a confidence level for all the constituents of the school, not onlyfor your faculty and staff, but for parents. . . . What I look for in teachersis their love for the Lord, and their commitment to their students and sub-ject matter. Then I look for intangibles like their ability to communicateand relate in an interview. Some candidates are really smart with goodacademic records, but they just can’t communicate. (Long term head 4,male)

Professional identity of the school head represented a gatekeeping func-tion for the school as they served as intermediaries in the hiring process.In order to facilitate a process of “the inexact science” of educational lead-ership one must have “a commitment to grow personally and professionally[in order to] expand your visions” (Long term head 5, male).

RELATIONSHIP

A second major theme that emerged from the analyses was EducationalLeader in Relationship. As heads of schools in both groups described theirexperiences in all of its variability, complexity, and unpredictability, the con-struct of numerous interwoven relationships which form the tapestry of theirlife and work became evident. Heads of schools navigated complicated net-works and contexts both in and out of school. Relationships formed the coreof what heads of Christian schools were involved in day-to-day, school-yearto school-year, and these relationships combined elements of potential andproblematic on an ongoing basis. Heads of schools became key actors on abusy school stage, and because of the intricate work they performed, alsofunction as director, stage manager, line prompter, and understudy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Three subthemes served to expand the major theme above and enrichits complexity. The first of these, that the head is engaged in multiplecontexts, seemed obvious. The archetypal role of the head of a Christianschool placed them into contact with specific stakeholders, each at timeswith differing visions and understandings of the school mission and pur-poses. The objective of the school head became successfully navigatingthese waters. That this was problematic was well-stated by one school head:

The biggest issue is people have their own view of what things needto be and what the leader looks like and instead of getting behind theleader and trying to build something, they’re going to make the changeand the grass is going to be greener on the other side. (Long term head2, male)

However, in the midst of multiple agendas, some school heads haveevidenced a tendency to attenuate those competing visions and to create asense of developing unity of purpose among stakeholders:

I have people skills in order to get along with a variety of people becausethere is an unrelenting expectations [sic] from all groups, and sometimethose expectations are competing and you have to be able to understandfor yourself what each of those groups is saying and wants. I have beenable to develop relationships . . . and to keep those relationships strong.I think you have to be a visionary, to know where the organization isgoing and why. You have to be willing to take risks, steps of faith, andI’ve been willing to do that. (Long term head 5, male)

Stability and longevity in this subtheme appeared to work out of aperceived sense of working relationships centered upon a common vision,and an ability to build bridges among constituents without compromisingcore beliefs. The idea of fostering capacity for consensus had a compellingrelational aspect, taking into account diverse others without losing essentialprinciples.

The second subtheme, that of the school head as embedded in lay-ered authority, was perhaps the most complex and problematic elementencounter in the study. The construct of authority as layered evinced aschool leader surrounded by authority structures both explicit and impliedand on multiple levels as they exhibited authority over others and yetremained under authority themselves. With respect to productivity of nar-rative, the story here revolved around one major authority structure—theschool Board.

Servicing and communicating the metanarrative vision of the schooland policy function over “micromanaging the administrator” became a clearpositive theme as this school head attested:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


What has happened here is the Board is much more concerned withupholding the mission and vision, maintaining the financial sustainabilityof the school, and establishing a strategic vision for the school, so theyaren’t interested in the day-to-day operations of the school. They leaveall of that to me and the administrative team. . . . Having a board focusedon these things, which I think is proper, has contributed to my longevity.(Long term head 5, male)

Note the major connection of a well-defined board structure with clearlines of authority and its effect upon perception of school head perceptionof effectiveness. This respondent went on to describe the almost bardiccharacter of the continuing school head in the midst of board changes:

I have worked now with a dozen or so different board presidents, mostof the board members now are not part of the old days and many boardmembers are younger than I am and part of the new regime of theschool. I have found myself needing to shift how I work with the boardbecause they often don’t know the history and they don’t know thestories. . . . I had to tell those stories of struggle and change. (Long termhead 5, male)

As the school head perseveres through the necessary changes of board,they became the historians and storytellers of the narrative of the schoolover time. Their longevity served as a reminder of the past and its lessonsfor the future of the school.

The final subtheme was the school head expressing complex roles.This was no less problematic than the complexities excavated in the priorsubthemes of context and authority. School size, budget constraints, jobdescription, and mission and vision all played into the numerous and variedroles heads of schools enacted on a daily basis.

One head of school remarked in this way:

I think a lot of times, if you get into administration, you know, especiallythe Christian school administrator when you don’t have a large staff,you’ve got to have a basic understanding of the legal issue[s], you’ve gotto have a basic understanding of budget and finance . . . you have todeal with parents and their issues. . . . And then there are always theissues of teachers—keeping them, training them. The problem for me isswitching roles so often in a busy week. (Serial head 1, female)

Or this disclosure from another school head:

A Christian school administrator is far beyond an administrator. We’retalking about leadership. We’re talking about [being a] recruiter. We’retalking about budget manager, business aspect. This is a huge job and a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


person must be called. They cannot be an “8–5” person. . . . In fact oneof the questions I asked in an interview, which I am not sure what theanswer is, “Is a person who works more than 8 hours a day inefficientor ineffective?” (Serial head 4, male)

School heads tended to exhibit one of two attributes in relationshipto roles played. Either they articulated a surface functionality or a morenuanced ideation of deeper fulfillment rooted in a theological/spiritualunderstanding of their work. Whether they portrayed their work roles ascentered on the functionality of a job description or as having a richly deepermeaning and fulfillment had some bearing on perceptions of engagingcomplex roles, and both groups had responses from either side.

BRIDGING THE GAP—SCHOOL HEADS AND OUTCOMES

As we approach the conclusion of the study, we turn now to a finaltheme that was an operationalization of faithful presence through the per-son and relationships which described the life and work of Christian schoolheads. This last theme flowed out of the mission and vision espoused byChristian schools and typically resulted in the “branding” of the school as atype relative to engagement with culture. From this cultural stance, certainimplications of academic, spiritual, and cultural outcomes in students wereexternalized, yet oftentimes these separate components of outcomes becameblurred in the school mission statement.5 Although student outcomes wereoutside of the parameters of this study, the perceptions of school headsabout outcomes did come under scrutiny.

In a sabbatical study completed in 1992, Dr. Stephen Kaufmannreported on a selected group of Christian Schools International (CSI) andAssociation of Christian Schools International (ACSI) schools in which hesaw a disparity between the school’s stated mission and vision “and theactual understanding and implementation of their mission by teachers andstudents” (Kaufmann & Eames, 2007, p. 79). Kaufmann’s (1992) major pointas expressed in his sabbatical report was that “[Christian] schools were grad-uating students that were not substantially different from students at publicschools” (p. 3). In terms of spiritual and cultural outcomes of the Christianschool, Kaufmann explained it this way:

This is my concern—that we are turning out well-adjusted, competentstudents who are quite capable of making their way in the world, butnot ready to make a mark on it. Who may do well on their SAT scores,but not do well in coping with human need. Who are ready to live com-fortably for Christ, but not equipped to join a cause for Christ. (1992, p. 4)

Building on Webber’s (1979) model, Kaufmann (1992) interviewed fac-ulty in order to determine their perception of school mission creating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


TABLE 2 Kaufmann’s Comparison of Christian School Models

Description Example of School Mission

1. Pietistic dualist Dualistic epistemology;academic knowing andspiritual knowingessentially unrelated

“Our school is committedto excellence inacademics in a lovingChristian environmentwhere students maygrow in the Lord.”

2. Christian world view Theistic frame of referenceout of which academicmaterial is studied

“The mission of our schoolis to provide anenvironment which givesan opportunity forsuccess in academics,athletics and other areaswithin a Christianframework.”

3. Christiantransformational8

Similar to 2 above, butadds the dimension ofeffecting change instudents and society asan important goal for theschool

“To educate students froma biblical perspective andto prepare them toinfluence culture andsociety for Christ.”

a scaffold of three categories: pietistic dualist, Christian world view,and Christian transformational (p. 10).6 Table 2 describes each of theseperspectives relative to school mission.

The data suggested that the majority of schools in Kaufmann’s studyfit clearly in the first two categories (47% and 41% respectively), while amuch smaller sample of schools articulated a transformational understandingof mission and outcome (12%). Among teachers and students within theinterview sample, the highest ranking for biblical perspective was arrangedaround the theme of “positive spiritual environment” in the school (1992,p. 15).

More current research on the nature and outcomes of Christian schoolshas sought to critique the positivist, individualistic, and competitive spiritfounded in structuralism with one that is “dynamic, coherentist, communallyinterdependent, service oriented, and Christ-centered” (Mills, 2003, p. 129).Mills made a case that the espoused culture within a school—its perceivedoutcomes, values, motives, assumptions, and ideologies—may also be com-municated outward by constituents as they engaged the world and society.Mills warned that “it is imperative that the Christian school consciouslydefines and evaluates its culture, rather than allow it to develop by default”(p. 129).

How did this match up to our present study? The construct of Christianschool outcomes in light of the work done by Kaufmann and Mills was nota simple definitional element that was expressed and then optimized in a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


school environment. The construct of outcomes was variegated and com-plex. It represented an admixture of theology, philosophy, pedagogy, andpragmatics. Outcomes applied an intricate interplay of multiple stakehold-ers entertaining numerous—and at times, competing—agendas. The schoolhead was then asked to operationalize this implicit undercurrent, even inlight of an explicit and written mission and vision. What happens was aconstant interpretation of outcomes on the part of the school head whichmay lead the school on disparate paths as it tried to find its way towardunderstanding and implementing faithful presence in its stance toward mis-sion, vision, and purpose. Some of those paths led toward competition withsecular or other private schools; others led away from the world and world-liness; still others wished to effect change globally or locally. The spectrumof faithful presence within our sample groups and representative schoolcontexts—each filled with problematic and potential—presented aspectshighlighted by both Mills (2003) and Kaufmann (1992). Hunter’s (2010) con-cern, in line with Mills and Kaufmann, was that the kind of faithful presenceexpressed in many Christian schools did not rise to a level which leads toeffective cultural engagement. Indeed, Hunter raised the stakes by imply-ing that Christian schools by their very nature exist on the lowest level ofcultural engagement where the “practical everyday” gives way to the moreadvanced knowledge base of high-end educational institutions such as eliteprivate schools (p. 90), a point that might be disputed by Kaufmann and theauthors of the present study.

The query about student outcomes provoked this response aboutacademic achievement and status of the school in the community:

We are very competitive in the school market . . . and are well-thoughtof even by the more expensive prep-type schools in the area. Our SATscores for the elementary students are really high in reading and math. . . Do you need to know our scores? (Serial head 1, female)

One school head disclosed a conviction “that God’s Word is the answerfor everything” and then subsequently remarked that before he came to leadhis present school:

There was nothing wrong morally with the school at all, it was verysound. What happened is they probably lost, number one—they werenot consumer sensitive. You know, I tell the people, look, we can’tcompromise on the scripture. We can’t compromise on academics . . .

By the world’s standards, we are just very successful. (Serial head 2,male)

Or how the pressures from stakeholders force how the school inter-preted its mission in distorted ways:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Our mission statement talks about “raising up a prepared and Godlygeneration to serve the world in humility,” but that has been compro-mised . . . You know, the board wants us to . . . and the parents, too. . . to take out the serving part and make it more about excellence andsuccess. (Serial head 7, male)

In some cases, the mission of the Christian school relative to outcomesbecame militant and the thought ran toward preparing biblical warriors toengage the world on a battlefield of ideas:

We have worldview courses where we tackle the big ideas and reli-gions and attack them from a biblical perspective . . . Islam, Catholicism,Buddhism, socialism, pop culture. . . . [We want] our grads to walk awaywith an answer for the hope within, and to be able to argue for the faithin the world outside of the school. (Serial head 1, female)

However, there were those who attempted to operationalize a visionwhich was more in line with a transformational and other-centered per-spective. Appropriating this kind of model embodied its own level ofcommitments as well as school change. Several schools were “covenantal,”that is, admission was offered to Christian parents and their children, andschool heads in this realm saw possibilities for a deeper impact on the worldoutside of the school:

And what we do here touches hearts. I mean it’s a wonderful reforma-tional tradition, you know, Geraldine Steensma . . . all the people thathave informed us to say that if we’re not thinking transformationallyacross everything, the students were missing out . . . And not only that,our mission states that our kids will impact the bigger culture for thegospel, and we try to teach in that direction. (Long term head 3, male)

We can’t isolate kids from the world. The world is going to be there.They need to participate in it, to be in it. And the other big thing that I’mtrying to change . . . and that’s community service. I believe as Christians. . . we have an opportunity; I think we have a mandate to serve. (Serialhead 3, male)

Many of the school heads expressed their role in school outcomes tobe as one head put it, “educational and spiritual leaders in a school com-munity” (Serial head 5, male). In this description, they viewed themselves asfacilitators who hire and empower teaching professionals who consequentlyapply the school mission and vision through their interactions with students,parents, curriculum, and other school-related activities:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


I have a hard time taking credit for what my “on the ground” folks do. . . My teachers do the real work of making the mission of the schoolreal to students. Don’t get me wrong, if they miss an opportunity, I letthem know . . . But my teachers take what they do very seriously andmost of them want to see graduates, you know, go on to serve. Someof our grads go on to do neat stuff . . . doctors, law . . . art and drama,teaching, you know. (Long term head 1, male)

In an overarching way, school heads connected to the various outcomesof the Christian school by building key relationships between the statedmission of the school and the primary stakeholders, particularly instruc-tional practitioners and students. Outcomes as a contextual construct in aschool evoked many complicating factors—mission, vision, school model,curriculum, theological perspectives—and displayed both an intricacy ofunderstanding and interpretation on the part of school heads as well asother key players in the school.

CONCLUSION: FAITHFUL PRESENCE AND THE BURDENOF LEADERSHIP

Reframing Hunter’s (2010) argument toward faithful presence in the particu-larity of the Christian school head required an imaginal narrowing of focuswhich Hunter would probably not have envisioned. This project determinedto apply Hunter’s model of faithful presence toward a better understand-ing of an underresearched area. Having opened the door to a number ofkey concepts and themes around the life and work of Christian schoolheads, it is clear that further study may be focused that may lead to deeperunderstanding.

What Hunter describes as “the burden of leadership” (p. 269) hasplausibility in its vision of the:

. . . incarnation of a kind of leadership that realizes in the relationshipswe have, in the tasks we undertake, and within the actual places (bothphysical and social) we inhabit, the shalom that comes from God andthat is God in the person of Jesus Christ. (p. 269)

In other words, the burden of shalom in the school learning commu-nity fell to its leadership, and the concept of faithful presence—the actualembodiment of leadership in the person and relationships of the Christianschool head—in significant ways came to rest in the life and work of schoolheads who themselves are fallen and in need of redemption. The actualiza-tion of roles and responsibilities and how those impact the products and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


outcomes of school mission and vision was at once archetypal and uniqueto each school context. As one principal related:

The work I do from day to day, week to week, and month to month. . . and I have to tell you, I fail and fall much of the time—is a . . .

striving to be a servant leader. I am broken and so is my school, but Ihope to send out graduates who can live and . . . work in a fallen world.My being there [in the school] signals a . . . precarious balance of loveand authority . . . of being strong and weak. (Serial head 5, male)

Another disclosed this about their perception of leadership:

I think I am a symbol of what the school stands for. . . . And I am giventhe responsibility of communicating and making that mission happen—for teachers, parents, students. Everybody looks to me for fulfilling ourvision for the school . . . I am a banner-carrier for what we teach andbelieve. That is a mandate from my school board. [laughs] If it weren’tfor having such a great staff, I don’t know how I could do it. It’s kindascary when you think about it. Who am I to be here? (Long term head 1,male)

Sergiovanni (2001) resonated with this understanding as he exploredthe idea of moral leadership in the principalship as having several movingparts: heart, head, and hand (p. 343). In the heart of leadership, beliefs, val-ues, dreams, and commitments determined a sense of personal vision. Thehead represented theories of practice upon which the school head reflects,those theories based on both best practices and personal experience in thefield. The hand of leadership applied heart and head to decision-making,management and authority, as school policies, procedures and programs aredetermined and assessed (p. 343). This work was not done in a neutral moralvacuum, but was rather founded upon “normative rationality,” what wasbelieved and thought to be good and true (p. 348). For the Christian schoolhead, these norms were generated, however problematically or haltingly,through Scripture and common grace insights as the Holy Spirit illumines.

Faithful presence has much in common with the concept adapted bySergiovanni (2001) a concept with which Christians are quite familiar, thatof servant leadership. For Sergiovanni as a leading researcher into the cur-rent models of educational leadership, servant leadership was an aspect ofmoral leadership in the school context (p. 357). It was a function of com-mitment to the values, propositions, purposes, and people working in thecommunity of learners. Being a servant leader expressed the concepts andthemes described in this project, a complex interplay of self, calling, andprofessional identity engaging multiple key relations within the school. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


term faithful presence has been used in this study, but servant leader wouldsuffice. Sergiovanni ends his book on the principalship with this insight:

Servant leadership describes well what it means to be a principal.Principals are responsible for “ministering” to the needs of the schoolsthey serve. The needs are defined by the shared values and purposesof the school’s covenant. They minister by furnishing help and beingof service to parents, teachers, and students. They minister by provid-ing leadership in a way that encourages others to be leaders in theirown right. They minister by highlighting and protecting the values ofthe school. The principal as minister is one who is devoted to a cause,mission, or set of ideas and accepts the duty and obligation to serve thiscause. (pp. 357–358)

Faithful presence for the Christian school head displayed a creativetension between the necessary managerial aspects of the position and themoral dimensions of servant leadership. Within the thematic structure ofthe qualitative study, this balance was manifest in both the person andrelationships of the school head. Indeed, the given authority to lead—asa servant leader—involved authority-sourcing. Bureaucratic, personal, pro-fessional, and moral7 sources of school head authority have the potential tocreate a followership of teachers, parents, and students (Sergiovanni, 2001,p. 351). The faithful presence of the school head was communicated anddistributed among the various constituents as the school attempted to passits interpretation of faithful presence on, both problematically and in incom-plete or even naïve ways as the exploratory study has surfaced. Teacherswere encouraged to instruct and lead in the classroom according to theschool’s stated mission and vision relative to outcomes. Students were stim-ulated to “achieve,” the school academic, spiritual, and cultural outcomesthrough the curriculum, programs, and environmental factors which madeup the school culture. In our present exploratory study, this precariousbalance of managing outcomes was made multidimensional through thedisclosed complexities in the spoken narratives of our respondent group.

What we have learned then is that the Christian school head playeda pivotal role as a faithful presence enacting and communicating the cul-tural stance and values espoused in the life and work of the school. Theschool head as person—represented in the study as presentation of self,sense of calling, and professional identity—described faithful presence inlight of the human dimension of place and work in school. The school headin relationship—typified as engaging multiple contexts, embedded in lay-ered authority, and expressing complex roles—explored the complexities ofthe various associations the school head entertains in the fulfillment of theirperceived vocational calling.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


NOTES

1. Hunter does, however, refer to “parallel institutions—in music, education, media, law, andthe like . . .” created by conservative Christians since the late 19th century in their reaction to secularmodernity (p. 214). In an interview with James K. A. Smith for The Other Journal (Retrieved from:http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=1029), Hunter is asked to clarify his apparent criticismof evangelicalism as subculture. He responds: “I am grieved to think that what I wrote was read as ablanket criticism of the structure of parallel institutions. . . . [These institutions have] been a source ofenormous vitality in all the traditions of Christianity. . . .”

2. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. (2002) references Wolterstorff, in his book Engaging God’s World,describing shalom as “universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight—a rich state of affairs in whichnatural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, all under the arch of God’s love” (p. 15).

3. Attributed to Nick Barker, a Covenant College English professor.4. The sample for this study was derived from a subset of respondents to a quantitative survey

completed by Eames for the Cardus research. The survey was designed to determine factor or predictorsof School head tenure. A broadly disbursed e-mail survey was sent to 4,257 addresses representative ofP–12 Christian school heads worldwide. Six hundred forty seven fully completed the survey. From thissubset were selected school heads based on number of positions held and number of years in service.

5. For example, when ABC Christian school states in its published mission that it “exists to glorifyGod by providing students with a curriculum marked by excellence and biblical integration, an environ-ment centered on personal challenge and discipleship, and a vision focused on recapturing the world forChrist and fruitful vocation,” theology, academics, cultural engagement, and spiritual outcomes become amixed bag of attributes often difficult to define or measure. Certain elements of this complexity came outin this study as well. As to whether Christian schools can measure what they espouse to actual outcomesin graduates is left to the other projects in the CARDUS CES.

6. Although Hunter (2010) describes the Church’s stance toward cultural engagement in his bookwith an “antidote” alternative of “faithful presence,” Kaufmann’s model is specifically focused on themission and vision of Christian schools and not the broader Church.

7. Because the exercise of authority is also a complex construct, each of these may be seento competing but necessary. Bureaucratic authority is that given by the school board to the princi-pal to activate and enforce rules, mandates, and procedures and is layered and multifaceted. Personalauthority is derived from interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of the school head as a function ofcalling and presentation of self. Professional authority applies the pedagogical and educational exper-tise and is a function of professional identity. Finally, moral authority is based on values, ideas,and shared understandings and asks the community to respond by following, a function of servantleadership.

8. Hunter (2010) disparages terms such as “transforming the world” and “redeeming the culture”as being generally impossible and unrealistic for cultural engagement, and not an expression of “faithfulpresence” (p. 280). Although Kaufmann (1992) uses the term “transformation of culture and society,” hebalances it simply and elegantly with Steensma’s (1977) thought that knowledge leads to action, but a“loving action toward others in everyday, concrete experience” (p. 5). Although Hunter emphasizes thecultural power of connected Christian elites to effect broad cultural engagement, he does not neglect thesimple care and concern of a grocery check-out woman whose “sphere of influence was only six squarefeet” and who remembered customers’ names and families, and ended her task with a commitment topray for them (p. 268).

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology—New vistas forqualitative research. London, UK: Sage.

Beckman, J. (2004). Lessons to learn—Charlotte Mason’s house of education andresistance to taxonmic drift (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofCambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Cohen, J. (2008). “That’s not treating you as a professional”: Teachers constructingcomplex identities through talk. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,14(2), 79–93.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5thed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school cultures.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher—Using our selves inresearch. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishing.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. NewYork, NY: Falmer Press.

Goffmann, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY:Doubleday.

Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessinglearner-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards,and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to schooleffectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3),157–191.

Hart, A., & Ogawa, R. (1987). The influence of superintendents on the academicachievement of school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 26(1),72–84.

Hunter, J. (2010). To Change the World—The irony, tragedy, and possibility ofChristianity in the late modern world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kaufmann, S. (1992). Sabbatical study report to schools in study. Faculty Forumpaper. 1–37.

Kaufmann, S., & Eames, K. (2007). The leader as risk taker—Equipping studentsto engage the world. In J. Drexler (Ed.), Schools as communities—Educationalleadership, relationships, and the eternal value of Christian schooling pp. 59–82.Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design.

Krüger, M., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P. (2007). The impact of school leadershipon school level factors: Validation of a causal model. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, 18(1), 1–20.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews—An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, K. (2003). The Culture of the Christian school. Journal of Education andChristian Belief , 7(2), 129–142.

Neibuhr, H. R. (1951/1996). Christ and culture. San Francisco, CA:HarperSanFrancisco.

Ogawa, R., & Hart, A. (1985). The effects of principals on the instructionalperformance of schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 24(1), 59–72.

Partlow, M. (2007). Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover.Planning and Changing, 31(1/2), 60–76.

Plantinga, C. (2002). Engaging God’s world. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmann.Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life 2—An invitation to a critical humanism.

London, UK: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Ricoeur, P. (1994). Oneself as another. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Robinson, V. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities:

Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy inSchools, 9(1), 1–26.

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student out-comes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing—The art of hearing data.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schostak, J. (2006). Interviewing and representation in qualitative research.Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Segiovanni, T. (2001). The principalship—A reflective practice perspective. Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research—A guide for researchers ineducation and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shuy, R. (2001). In-person versus telephone interviewing. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein(Eds.), Handbook of interview research—Context & method (pp. 537–556).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steensma, G. (1977). Shaping school curriculum – A Biblical view. Terre Haute, IN:Signal.

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London, UK: Sage.Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data—Description, analysis, and

interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Wolterstorff, N. (2002). Educating for life—Reflections on Christian teaching and

learning. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

APPENDIX

Semistructured Interview Guide

CARDUS Research ProjectQualitative Questions Guide

INTERVIEWER ________________________________RESPONDENT ________________________________DATE _________________

___ Longevity sample ___Serial sample

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


I. OPENING (Both L & S Groups): Why educational leadership?A. FOLLOW-UPS TO OPENING:

___ Can you talk about some of the key qualities and/or characteristicsthat describe what it is about YOU that makes an effective educationalleader?___ How does ‘calling’ fit into your role as educational leader?

II. FOR LONGEVITY GROUP:A. How have you managed to navigate such a long tenure in your school?B. Can you describe for me any particular challenges over your years of

leadership that stand out? Any particular successes?C. Tell me about a time in which your role as educational leader became

burdensome and how you handled the stress. What was the finalresolution?

D. Tell me about your style of leadership as it relates to teachers andBoard.

E. What is the role of the Board in your school and how does it impactwhat you do as educational leader? Describe for me the governancestructure of your school in terms of the Board.

F. When conflict arises in your school, say over a controversial decision,how do you generally handle this? Can you tell of a specific instancein which you dealt with conflict? How did it resolve?

G. What has been the impact of your tenure on the quality of teachergrowth and development and student learning outcomes in theschool(s) you have led?

III. FOR SERIAL GROUP:A. Tell me about your various school experiences as educational leader.

Begin with where you are now and work backwards:___ What first attracted you to this school?___ What challenges and opportunities opened up for you in eachschool?___Describe the governance structure of your school in terms of theBoard.___ Why did you eventually sense a need to move on?___ How did you manage the transitions between school jobs?

B. Why do you believe you have had a number of different positionsas educational leader? What could have been changed to make youremain longer?

C. How do you handle conflict? Describe an instance that is important toyou and how it resolved.

D. Educational leadership can be very straining emotionally. How do youhandle the stress of leadership? Be as specific as you can. Maybe tellof an instance of great stress.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013


E. Tell me about your style of leadership as it relates to teachers andBoard. What role(s) do you assume? How has your leadership stylechanged as you move from one leadership position to the others?

F. When people describe you as an educational leader, what kinds ofthings might they say?

G. What has been the impact of your tenure on the quality of teachergrowth and development and student learning outcomes in theschool(s) you have led?

IV. CLOSING (Both L & S Groups):A. Please respond in any way to the following: The position of educa-

tional leader in a Christian school context is a revolving door for thosewho choose this vocation.

B. What do you see are the outcomes of your school relative to stu-dents? Academic, spiritual, cultural. How do you see your studentsimpacting or influencing the wider culture? What role do you playin reinforcing or supporting your school’s mission and vision towardthose outcomes?

C. What have you learned about yourself in your educational leadershipjourney? Any changes, regrets, or affirmations?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cov

enan

t Col

lege

], [

Jack

Bec

kman

] at

11:

47 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Faithful Presence”: The Christian School Head, Personhood, Relationships, and Outcomes

Documents

Transcript of Faithful Presence”: The Christian School Head, Personhood, Relationships, and Outcomes