Turnaround leaders’ shifting gears in chronos and kairos time
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2018-0139 |
| Published date | 04 November 2019 |
| Pages | 690-707 |
| Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Author | Irene H. Yoon,Annie Barton |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Turnaround leaders’shifting
gears in chronos and kairos time
Irene H. Yoon and Annie Barton
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy,
The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Abstract
Purpose –In empirical research and practitioner guides, turnaround processes tend to be described in terms
of discrete stages and strategies. Though necessary, this characterization belies the twists and turns of
turnaround leadership. The purpose of this paper is to expand the assumptions of how turnaround proceeds
in linear chronos time with the sensibilities of kairos time or the “right”time for turnaround leadership moves.
Design/methodology/approach –This study is an exploratory qualitative multi-case study with
principals and their key supports (assistant principals, district leaders, teacher leaders) in four public
turnaround schools. The grounded theory analysis conceptualizes the experiences of turnaround principals in
flexible, complex ways.
Findings –The findings begin with a metaphor and definition of “shifting gears”at chronos and kairos
times that emphasiz es how turnaround pr incipals make adapt ive, agentic adjust ments when moving
forward through changing terrain. The second half of findings describes each principal’s experiences and
reflections on their discernment of the right times for change within a chronological trajectory of
turnaround. In addition, the leaders described shifting gears as strategic and responsive to contexts,
sometimes taking a psychological to ll.
Originality/value –Expanding notions of time in turnaround re-centers turnaround leaders as engaging in
intellectually and emotionally demanding work. Such recognition challenges future research to address
experiences and emotions in dynamic contexts. Hence, with this study, preparation programs and state and
local systems may adjust holistic supports and leadership pipelines to sustain turnaround leaders.
Keywords Principals, Turnaround, Leadership, Accountability, School improvement
Paper type Research paper
Nearly 20 years after No Child Left Behind (2001) and the expansion of federal school
performance accountability systems in the USA, mandated school improvement remains a
major concern for states, school systems and community stakeholders. From existing
research on successful improvement or “turnaround,”it is clear that these efforts involve a
set of intertwined agendas, such as improving staff morale while also demanding new and
improved instructional practices; increasing rigor and student learning of key academic
standards; and doing so within historically entrenched racial and social class inequities
(Finnigan and Stewart, 2009; Giles, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2010). Furthermore,
accountability-based turnaround is nested in district, state and federal policy contexts, as
well as organizational cultures (Peurach and Marx, 2010). Thus, leaders in turnaround
schools require flexible and varied skills to build relationships and guide instructional and
cultural transformation in dynamic conditions that are cognitively and politically complex
(Cosner and Jones, 2016; Finnigan, 2012; Koyama, 2014). However, most studies and reports
that are directed toward turnaround leaders focus on what leaders do and less on what it is
like for leaders to choose what to do at the right time and in the best ways given
surrounding circumstances (Cosner and Jones, 2016).
Guidance on what to do, while foundational, is not enough because –due to changing
resources, staff turnover, new assessment tools and district- and state-level policy
environments –turnaround is a process that occurs in constantly changing terrain (Park
et al., 2018). Yet there is little empirical research that explores turnaround processes in a way
that investigates the twists and turns –and deep uncertainty –of leading high-stakes
change in such a landscape (exceptions include Orr et al., 2005; Peurach and Marx, 2010).
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 57 No. 6, 2019
pp. 690-707
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-08-2018-0139
Received 2 August 2018
Revised 31 January 2019
5 April 2019
22 May 2019
Accepted 23 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
690
JEA
57,6
We suggest that scholarship and practitioner guides on school improvement under
accountability have over-emphasized linear stages and technical steps without fully
exploring the ambiguities that are part of school turnaround. Therefore, in this study we
describe how four school principals described their schools’turnaround efforts and how
they felt leading them. We used a grounded theory process to conceptualize how these
turnaround leaders actively made sense of change and negotiated their school leadership
contexts. Building on other research, we emphasize that the experience of turnaround
leadership is adaptive, agentic, intellectually and emotionally demanding work that attends
to both policy-mandated time constraints and opportune timing for change. We are guided
by two questions: How do turnaround principals describe what it is like to lead schools
through accountability-based turnaround? and How do they feel as they are going through
this experience? These questions address not only what leaders do during turnaround, but
also how they know when to do it and how they feel.
Before we begin we offer a clarification of terms. In earlier iterations of US federal
accountability policy, “turnaround”was a specific model of change that was funded by
federal School Improvement Grants (SIGs). We refer to “school turnaround,”“high-stakes
school improvement”and “mandated school improvement”as interchangeable terms for
school improvement under federal or state accountability systems, and not to refer to
particular change models.
Literature background
School turnaround is part of a broader accountability policy system. Most peer-reviewed
research studies address one stage of accountability or turnaround policy at a time: when
and how accountability systems identify schools as low performing (Hansen, 2012;
Hochbein et al., 2013); when schools are developing school improvement plans (Fernandez,
2011; Mintrop and MacLellan, 2002; VanGronigen et al., 2017); leadership and schoolwide
implementation of turnaround strategies (Ainscow et al., 2006; Cosner and Jones, 2016; Giles,
2007; Hamilton et al., 2007; Herman et al., 2008); and post hoc examinations of changes in
performance (Brinson and Rhim, 2009; Dragoset et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2013).
Longitudinal studies of turnaround that examine how schools sustain or lose ground on
improvements are rare (exceptions include Bellei et al., 2016; Duke and Landahl, 2010;
Earl et al., 2006; Finnigan and Gross, 2007). The literature base on accountability and school
improvement is therefore organized by the staging of the policy process.
Turnaround leadership
Within the large base of research on the implementation of school improvement and
turnaround is a focus on school leadership. Several studies have explored how school
leaders make sense of the range of issues they face as they embark on mandated school
turnaround efforts and the ways that they may (or may not) be strategically attempting to
influence individual and collective engagement with change (Cosner and Jones, 2016;
Duke and Salmonowicz, 2010; Finnigan, 2012; Zayim and Kondakci, 2014). Leaders’
perceptions and strategies are complicated when leaders are new to their schools and
settings, which is often the case when leaders are placed in low-performing schools
specifically for turnaround (Duke and Salmonowicz, 2010; Kowal and Hassel, 2011).
In these cases, leaders may enter schools that have had histories of low or fluctuating
performance, high previous principal turnover, and myriad challenges to school climate
and instructional effectiveness (Giles, 2007; Hamilton et al., 2007).
Practitioner and peer-reviewed research resources assert that, in addition to framing
the purpose and vision for specific improvement strategies, leaders must filter and buffer
the impact of multiple district and state-level initiatives on their schools, protecting a
focus on improvement goals (Finnigan, 2012; Finnigan and Stewart, 2009; Hitt, 2015;
691
Turnaround
leaders’
shifting gears
To continue reading
Request your trial