This article draws on a reanalysis of findings from two separate qualitative studies that examined a possible relationship between school board members’ and curriculum directors’ conceptions of power and the way they made decisions (Mountford, 2001; Ylimaki, 2001, respectively). The findings from both studies were then compared to the extant literature on collaborative decision making and inherent obstacles of power to sustained collaboration. The findings reveal a pattern among school board members’ and curriculum directors’ conceptions and enactments of power. This pattern of behavior can be used by educational leaders to increase their understanding about the role of power during collaborative decision making, minimize some of the obstacles of power to collaborative decision making, and build and sustain collaborative efforts of all kinds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArendtH. (1972). Crises of the republic: Lying in politics, civil disobedience on violence, thoughts on politics, and revolution.New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
2.
BogdanR., & BiklenS. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
BrunnerC. C. (1998a). The new superintendency supports innovation: Collaborative decision making. Contemporary Education, 69(2), 79–82.
4.
BrunnerC. C. (1998b). Can power support an ethic of care? An examination of the professional women superintendents. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4(2), 142–175.
5.
BrunnerC. C. (November, 2002). Professing educational leadership: Conceptions of power. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 693–720.
6.
BrunnerC. C., & SchumacherP. (1998). Power and gender in the “new view public schools.”Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 30–45.
7.
CapperC. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society.Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
CrowG. (1998). Implications for leadership in collaborative schools. In PounderD. (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 135–153). Albany: SUNY Press.
9.
DahlR. A. (1961). Who governs?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
DonaldsonJ., & EdelsonP. (2000). From functionalism to postmodernism in adult education leadership. In WilsonA., & HaysE. (Eds.), Handbook of adult continuing education (pp. 191–207). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
DonaldsonJ., & KozollC. (1999). Collaborative program planning: Principles, practices, and strategies.Malabara, FL: Krieger Publishing.
12.
DuFourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement.Bloomington, IN: NES.
13.
DyerC. (1999). Researching the implementation of educational policy: A backward mapping approach. Comparative Education, 35, 45–61.
14.
EpsteinG. (1997). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. In FullanM. (Ed.), The challenge of school reform (pp. 255–284). Arlington Heights, IL: Light Training and Publishing.
15.
FinnanC. (1996). Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the field.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
16.
FollettM. P. (1924). Creative experience.New York: Basic Books.
17.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel.Philadelphia: Buchanon.
18.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
GoodmanR., & ZimmermanW. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st century school board superintendent leadership, governance and teamwork for high student achievement.Marlborough, MA: New England School Development Council.
GroganM. (1999). A feminist poststructuralist account of collaboration: A model for the superintendency In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams: Women in the superintendency. (pp. 199–216). New York: SUNY Press.
23.
HunterF. (1953). Community power structure.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
24.
JohnsonS. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
25.
KowalskiT. J. (1995). Keepers of the flame: Contemporary urban superintendents.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
26.
LambertL. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
27.
LasswellH. D., & KaplanA. (1950). Power and society.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.New York and London: Routledge.
MarshallC., & AndersonG. (1994). Rethinking the public and private spheres: Feminist and cultural studies perspectives on the politics of education. Politics of Education Association Yearbook, (vol. 1, pp. 169–182). New York: Falmer.
32.
McCurdyJ. (1992). Building better school boards. Administrator relations.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
33.
MountfordM. (2001). Motivations for school board membership, conceptions of power, and their effects on decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
34.
MountfordM. (2004, December). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–741.
35.
MountfordM., & BrunnerC. C. (2002). Motivations for school board membership: Implications for superintendents. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances of research and theories of school management and educational policy (pp. 135–152). Oxford, London: Elvesier Press.
36.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Stronger accountability for stronger results. Retrieved September 28, 2003, from www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.
PounderD. (1998). Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
39.
RingP., & Van De VenA. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
40.
RussellB. (1938). Power: A new social analysis.London: Allen and Unwin.
41.
SarasonS. (1995). Political involvement and the political principle: Why the existing governance structure of schools should be abolished.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42.
SergiovanniT. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
43.
ShortP., & GreerJ. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44.
SimonH. (1953). Notes on the observation and measurement of power. Journal of Politics, 15, 500–516.
45.
SpradleyJ. (1979). The ethnographic interview.New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
46.
WeberM. (1924). The theory of social and economic organizations.Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
47.
WohlstetterP. (1995). Organizing for successful school management.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
48.
YlimakiR. (2001). Collaboration for the successful implementation of reform: A multi-case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
