![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This qualitative study investigated two high school principals’ articulation of establishing a sense of community. The principals’ narratives, values, beliefs, and behaviors are examined through the lens of community membership, fulfillment of needs, influence, and emotional connections. Findings show that the principals, leading schools with different contexts, both implemented structures and processes that addressed elements of the frame as foundation for student success. While the principals expressed similar beliefs regarding community, behavioral approaches differed in implementation.
While governing bodies and policies at the local level may differ across the United States, the essential nature of schools as organizations are quite similar. However, schools often are placed in communities with myriad demographics and contexts, led by people with varying beliefs and value systems. Context sometimes plays a role in decisions that are made as principals may be influenced by colleagues, parents, students, and the “specific educational circumstances in which they find themselves” (Dempster, Carter, Freakley, & Parry, 2004, p. 165), thus, reinforcing that context is an essential consideration in “defining and influencing who principals are and what they do” (Hausman, Crow, & Sperry, 2000, p. 5). Principal beliefs and values are instrumental in determining to what extent context influences their praxis, particularly in “leader intent and interactions within various situations of practice” (Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2011, p. 19).
Principal decision making and behavior, influenced by the school’s micro-context, is critical in establishing trust and credibility within the school community. Thus, “every decision is a test” (Hausman et al., 2000, p. 8). The outcomes of many of these decisions affect the core of the school community, the student. Studies have investigated the impact of the principal on student academic outcomes, finding distal links (Firestone & Herriott, 1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1994). Yet Hargreaves, Earl, and Ryan (1996, as cited in Osterman, 2000, p. 323) note that “one of the most fundamental reforms needed in secondary or high school education is to make schools into better communities of caring and support for young people” (p. 77). Building caring school communities engenders a sense of belonging in students, increases motivation, and increases a student’s feeling of competence (Osterman, 2000).
The focus of this study is to investigate principal articulations of how they create a sense of community for students in two high schools through their behaviors and decision making, founded in what they value. Therefore, the overriding research questions which guided this study are as follows: (1) How do principals describe their behaviors in developing a sense of community in students? and (2) How do principals voice their beliefs in developing a sense of community in students? This qualitative study examines the narratives of two high school principals and their self-reported beliefs and behaviors, within the micro-context of the school communities that they lead. Through the application of sense of community theory (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) in two very different school contexts with dissimilar principals, I attempt to demonstrate how a leader’s values and behaviors, as told through the narratives of the principals, builds and fosters school community.
Sense of Community Theory
The word “community” refers both to a place, that is, the actual boundaries of a civic designation and to relationships, whether professional or personal (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). For purposes of this study, community will be defined as follows:
Sense of community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together. (McMillan, 1976, as cited in McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9)
The idea of meeting needs is founded in the work of Maslow (1943) in his discussion of meeting basic human needs before higher order needs can be met, positing that needs are hierarchical, forming the basis for Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation. McMillan and Chavis (1986) argued that communities can fulfill human needs. Since values, according to McMillan and Chavis, are the source of individual needs, belonging to a community whose members have like values will strengthen the community as “people meet others’ needs while they meet their own” (p. 13).
There are four elements to the sense of community theory, including membership, influence, fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection. The element of membership is the idea of relating to others and a sense of belonging. Belonging is the “expectation that one fits in the group and has a place there, a feeling of acceptance” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 10). The core of this feeling of belonging is closely linked to identification with the community. While influence emphasizes that the person’s needs and opinions are important to the group, there is also the influence on the member to conform to the community’s values and expectations.
McMillan and Chavis (1986) stressed that the third element, fulfillment of needs, also deals with fit. A person who fits into the community will be rewarded with having their needs fulfilled, which McMillan and Chavis viewed as reinforcement. This reinforcement serves as motivation to model the behavior that indicates shared values with the other members of the community, thus, continuing to fit into the community. Finally, the element of emotional connection encompasses shared beliefs, interactions, bonds, and identification with the community, which will all ultimately strengthen the community and the person’s place within it.
Osterman (2000), in her study of students and school community, underscored the idea that belonging is an importance process for students. She notes that
Children who experience a sense of relatedness have a stronger supply of inner resources. They perceive themselves to be more competent and autonomous and have higher levels of intrinsic motivation. They have a stronger sense of identity but are also willing to conform to and adopt established norms and values. These inner resources in turn predict engagement and performance. (p. 343)
Moreover, Osterman’s (2000) review of literature also found that
Students’ experience of acceptance is associated with a positive orientation toward school, class work, and teachers. Students who experienced a greater sense of acceptance by peers and teachers were more likely to be interested in and enjoy school and their classes. These perceptions of school were also reflected in their commitment to their work, higher expectations of success, and lower levels of anxiety. (p. 331)
Belonging to a group increases the individual’s connection to that group. Thus, an understanding how a student might increase their sense of belonging may be informed through an examination of school community and how it is built and fostered.
Method
Because the purpose of this study was to investigate how principals articulate the ways in which they develop a sense of community for students, identification of principals who were student-centered was essential. The school leaders herein were identified through recommendations by university professors and school district personnel who were provided criterion for purposeful selection. I asked for recommendations of potential respondents from gatekeeper personnel who perceived the submitted names were committed to providing a safe space to students, fostering a sense of community in the school, and made this a priority in their leadership practice. Selection of two principals was based on differential context. Recommended principals were contacted and asked to volunteer. No criteria regarding gender, ethnicity, years of experience, or student achievement levels were considered in contacting the principals. The leaders were interviewed using a semistructured protocol and each interview was approximately 90 minutes in length. One participant was interviewed at the school where he was positioned as the head principal. One participant was interviewed by phone. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then coded and categorized (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The two principals highlighted here were located in two Southeastern U.S. states.
Site and Participants
An understanding of the school context as well as the beliefs and values of the school principals is important within the framework of this study. A general description of school context as it applies to this study is followed by the community context. An overview of the personal context of the participants in this study will be provided. Information regarding context was gleaned from the respondents and the school and community websites. To ensure confidentiality of the respondents, the specific websites were not identified.
Context Description
The mesocontext is described in two ways, the school context in which the leader works and the larger community in which the school is placed. The school context pieces together a school’s profile and includes student descriptors. As part of the mesocontext, the institution’s history is critical to understanding current context. The school’s surrounding community also plays a role in the mesocontext. The ethnic and socioeconomic profile of the community influences the school organization, whether aspects of the community are directly related to schoolchildren. Community mobility and cohesion, influenced by the community economy is one example. The nature and availability of work in the surrounding area affect community mobility which, in turn, affects the school.
John Harrison1
The city of Mountain Top was at one time a thriving industrial town with a textile mill, a steel mill, and a lumber mill, as explained by John. All the mills closed and the industries moved in the late 20th century. With the loss of employment, most middle-class families also left the area, leaving a town predominately populated with low-socioeconomic families. As industries left, government subsidized housing grew, with five low-rent housing developments built in the city. The resulting impact on schools was a loss of approximately two thirds of the total enrollments and an increase of children who lived in poverty.
John described the demographics of the school to further clarify the mesocontext of the school. Mountain Top High School has 320 students with a large Caucasian population (87.2%) as well as a large population of students living in poverty (64.9%), many who live in the government subsidized housing not far from the school. A high percentage of the students have physical or learning disabilities (15.3%). While the district school system has assigned attendance zones for the schools, in actuality the system operates under an unofficial open enrollment policy, even accepting students zoned for neighboring school systems. Mountain Top High School, built for a capacity of 900 students and enrolling only 320, educates the majority of its students from attendance zones other than its own. Students who attend Mountain Top High School and are not zoned for this school must provide their own transportation to the school. However, family tradition carries great weight in this community. Thus, if parents and grandparents attended Mountain Top, then they prioritize that their child attends that school as well. This situation has produced both challenges and boons to the school. Many of the students who live outside of the attendance zone are from more affluent families. Moreover, the district supports the philosophy of parental choice for school. According to John:
It helps in some situations because you have a kid that wants to come to your school and they are allowed to come to your school, rather than forcing them to go a school that they don’t want to attend and their parents may not be happy with that school or situations at the school. So it gives them an opportunity to be where they want to be.
Conversely, if an out of zone student becomes a discipline problem or is not succeeding academically, the principal has the prerogative to return that child to their officially zoned school. This often results in a negative effect on student achievement for the receiving school because of instability, poor attitude of a student who resists the receiving school, and disruption to the learning process. In addition, John notes that some out of zone schools tend to refuse admission to students with known discipline issues or students who may have a negative impact on the school’s published test scores. As John explains, “it becomes kind of a conveyor belt of students either positive going and staying or moving those students out that are either attendance issues, grade issues, or discipline issues.”
With a large population of students with disabilities as well as many students living in poverty, the school relies on district and community help to service the students. Two social workers are assigned to Mountain Top High School to assist with relationships (student/student and student/parent/family) and any psychological issues students deal with as a result of trauma. The community supports the school in a number of areas. John gave two examples where students were directly helped through community agencies. A young man with severely decayed teeth which caused him pain as well as self-image issues was helped by a local dentist. A young lady, who was suffering from severe headaches, was aided by a local eye doctor when it was determined that vision problems were causing the headaches. Backpacks filled with food and given to high-needs students of poverty on Fridays assure these students will have something to eat on the weekends. There is a “Prom Closet” where donations of tuxedos and formal gowns are kept so students who cannot afford formal clothes can borrow dresses and tuxedos so they can attend the school prom.
As a first-year administrator, John has relied a great deal on his innate values and life experiences since he does not have administrative experiences to call on when making nonpolicy decisions. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in physical education with a teaching certificate in physical education, health, and lifetime wellness. After a stint as a semipro baseball player, John turned to high school teaching and coaching. John felt a desire to “help teachers and help students on a much larger scale than just the classroom” so he pursued a master’s degree in educational administration which led to his position as a principal. John is in an unusual situation as he moved from being a classroom teacher to a head principal position. Thus, prior to this current placement, his only experience as a school leader was during the internship in his master’s program. He is truly gaining on-the-job experience. However, he credits his internship and master’s coursework with increasing his passion to lead as he states that
through that process I fell in love with what it meant to be an administrator; fell in love with what it takes to be an administrator and how to lead and how to effect change and, in that, how to affect students in a positive way. But more importantly, how to create social justice and to create an opportunity for all students to learn and that’s what basically is the foundation of my philosophy.
John’s core values for social justice were instilled at a young age from his family, stating that he learned from them early on “how to treat people and interact with people, appropriate ways of thinking about people and inappropriate ways of thinking about people.” Raised in a deeply religious environment, he lives by the philosophy of “we are all God’s children.” Moreover, the importance of family has translated into his belief that the school community should be thought of as a family unit, with each member of the community prioritizing care for each other. John identifies as the father figure in the school family which translates into an informal philosophy of ethic of care.
Seeing people marginalized, whether it is because of race or because of economic background or because of ability or disability, it bothers me . . . and not wanting to see others put in that position has played a huge role in where I am as an educator, as a leader, and as an advocate for social justice.
Barry Newman
Gulf Breeze is located in the southern part of the United States and was originally settled by the Spanish. A commercial port during the 1800s, Gulf Breeze was a thriving city. The port and a rail system sustained the city throughout the 19th century. Gulf Breeze is a diverse city, with 52.5% Caucasian and 41.5% African American, followed by 1.7% Asian and 1.5% biracial. The community encompasses rural areas of farming along with urban populations. Outside of the main city area are sprawling suburbs. The city infrastructure has not kept up with the growth of the city and pockets of traffic trouble commuters. Only 16% of the population have a college degree. The median income for Gulf Breeze is $40,000.
Gulf Coast High School has a diverse population of over 1,100 students with almost 60% of the population African American and about 40% Caucasian. Barry, the head principal, calls the student population a classic “melting pot.” The zoned population for the students encompass rural areas as well as urban sections. With children of poverty at 65.8%, students live in diverse surroundings such as on country farms and in inner city government housing projects, though a few students live in large multistory homes. The students with disabilities population is relatively low at 7%.
Like many of the students who attend Gulf Coast High School, Barry grew up as one of the at-risk children. He credits role models in his life for guiding him to a leadership position. His parents, his high school coach, and the father of one of his friends provided Barry with structure and examples to emulate. Barry firmly believes that positive examples
were instilled in me by those people who let me know that this is what the world should be about, that we help one another, we work hard, we don’t quit, we give an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, and it was those things that led me to where I am today.
Barry began his educational career as a middle school physical education teacher and coach. The assistant principal at that school encouraged Barry to further his education and gain administrative certification. Following receipt of those credentials, Barry spent over 12 years serving in various administrative capacities and ultimately, was appointed principal of Gulf Coast High School.
Barry said he often thinks how he got to this place in life, using his experiences to work for marginalized children. Barry reflected on
what I was exposed to when I was growing up . . . the fact that I did not think that I was college material up until high school and I actually have a doctorate now. Having those experiences made me make sure that I pay attention to individual kids because it could be one simple thing . . . giving me the opportunity to say to these kids “you are worth something. Regardless of where you come from, you actually have the ability to be anything that you want.”
Like John, Barry’s beliefs were instilled by his parents and through high school sports. From them, Barry learning the value of role modeling and the significance of observing others. Barry has also utilized this in his leadership. (Table 1 provides a contextual comparison of John and Barry.)
|
Table 1. Contextual Comparison of John and Barry.
Findings
The data presented here stemmed from the narratives of two principals as they worked to develop a sense of community in their respective schools. Thus, the data are all self-reported. Nonetheless, their narratives provide stories of how these two leaders working within the school context, provided a safe and stable environment with which the students could identify and feel a sense of belonging. Using the four elements of the sense of community theory, that is, membership, influence, fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection, I examine how Barry and John articulated the development of a sense of community for students.
Membership
Membership in a community allows the members to feel a sense of belonging, a place where they are wanted, and where they fit. This feeling of belonging is particularly important to children who are willing to conform and assimilate into the community (Osterman, 2000). Both Barry and John equated belonging with identity and placed strong emphasis on structure.
As part of this structure, Barry and John provided an environment where the expectations for the students were shaped by the values of the principals who continually highlighted the behavior required of all members of the community. This was achieved by both principals through repeated articulation of expectations (John) and standards (Barry), providing a structure that framed these expectations, and providing a safe environment for the students who, at times, fail to meet these expectations to survive and thrive through the support of other community members. The values and behavior formed an identity for the students, an identity associated with the school community. For John, his belief in the importance of expectations played a role in that identity. He explained that structure
does create a level playing field where all students know what is expected and what is understood as appropriate so that, though it may not change the individual values, it may change the climate and the culture of the school to be one of a family oriented and accepting one. . . . We are all [Mountain Top High School] and we have to act accordingly. . . . At the end, we have to come together and create that sense of equality across the board. So that everyone is on the same page.
Following that line of thinking, Barry emphasized that
I think structure for every kid is important. Structure is important in any organization but the more challenging your clientele, the more challenging your population, the more challenging your staff, the more structure you need in place to eliminate a lot of, or minimize the potential for a lot of, things to go wrong. So the more structure you put in place and the more you observe or inspect that structure or people within that structure, they will understand what the standards are, then they know exactly what it is you want from them.
By formulating a structure, Barry also formulated an identity for the students within that structure. He gave several examples of the Gulf Coast High School way and the beliefs inherent in that phrase:
Regardless of what actually happens on the street, when you walk in this door, the doors of this school, we do things the [Gulf Coast] way. And the kids have heard this a number of times so they know when they walk into our building, we are going to do things the [Gulf Coast] way. Those standards may be completely different from what you have at home. They may be completely different from the middle school that you came from. And it may be completely different from the streets that you walk every day but once you come into this building, they know that this structure is going to provide safety for them, an opportunity for them to grow as an individual, an opportunity for them to express themselves, but they also know that there are checks and balances in place for them to make sure that they can do those things, without letting things get out of hand.
Instilling in students the way members of their community behave, the expectations of that community in order to remain a member, and a reinforcement that pride accompanies that membership, all motivate students to assimilate into that community. The motivation increases with the knowledge that membership in that community also comes with a sense of self-worth.
Influence
McMillan and Chavis (1986) discussed influence in terms of the group’s ability to both pressure others to conform as well as strengthening the cohesiveness of the group through affirming that member’s opinions and participation in the community are important. In other words, “uniform and conforming behavior indicates that a group is operating to consensually validate its members as well as to create group norms” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 11), while at the same time embracing the differences in each group member.
John and Barry exercised their influence through modeling. In this way, their values are expressed indirectly by serving as an exemplar for the behaviors which they expect other community members to demonstrate. According to both John and Barry, these values emanated from their background as well as their training as college athletes. Growing up, John’s family emphasized the values of their Christian faith, stressing the worth of every person. Barry, on the other hand, grew up as one of the marginalized children. However, a friend’s father served as a model to Barry, offering him opportunities he might not otherwise have had. These models, along with the college athletic experience of working for what you hope to achieve, depending on teammates for success, and motivation to accomplish goals all provided a foundation of values for John and Barry. The centrality of these values were expressed in their interactions with students and teachers. As John stated:
I try to be the example for the teachers. In the hallways, I model the actions that I most value. . . . Definitely the background that I have received from my training has been a big plus, knowing and having a firm grasp of what my philosophy is, knowing this is the way I need it to be and knowing that this is the way it should be. Being able to impact my world, maybe not the whole world, but my world, in terms of those values.
John believes it is incumbent on the leader to serve as a model for all stakeholders in the school community. Leading by example, modeling actions that demonstrate the values to which he adheres speaks louder than remonstrations or lectures. He behaves in ways that show both students and teachers he not only cares about teaching and learning but also cares about them as people. He hopes by developing a culture of care that this will translate into an expectation of behaviors of teachers to students and students to students. John shared a story about inappropriate behavior in a student and how he embraced a “culture of care” in dealing with the situation.
I have a special needs student who has a very difficult time with his anger management. He would just get so mad at some of his teachers. They could not do anything with him. I told him that if, for some reason, he needed to come talk to me, he could. He came to me one day and he was just mad. We talked about it and got to the reasoning of the situation and I helped him to understand about authority figures responses and his reaction to that response. . . . But you can’t do it in the classroom. You cannot interrupt that instructional time. He has been to me several times and . . . it has gotten better.
Offering a caring adult, encouraging the student to think of volatile situations reasonably, and continuing to be available were all ways that John influenced this student to think in terms of the community and the student’s place within it. At the same time, John was teaching this young man the values of the community and offering a model on how to meet these expectations.
Likewise, Barry tried to model for others the crux of his value system. He explained that sometimes teachers say “for that kid it can’t be done. I [Barry] just showed you that it can be done. So a lot of it is through example.” He continued:
I model what I want others to do. If I want this to happen, I model what behavior I want to see, whether it is teacher behavior or student behavior. I lead by example . . . I can model the behavior. I can show them evidence that what you are doing needs to be changed or needs to stop.
The belief that students trust more in what they see in adults, rather than what they hear from adults resonated strongly with both principals. This required an active engagement on the part of the principals but acting as a model for community behavior strongly influenced the students to do likewise.
Fulfillment of Needs
The idea of fulfilling student needs is repeatedly referred to by Barry and John. These principals believed that meeting a child’s needs is a core component of the work they do. Moreover, McMillan and Chavis (1986) pointed to meeting members’ needs as a way to bind the member to the community when they feel rewarded by having their needs met. McMillan and Chavis referred to this as a form of reinforcement, because, as these researchers remind us, “a motivator of behavior is a cornerstone in behavioral research, and it is obvious that for any group to maintain a positive sense of togetherness, the individual-group association must be rewarding for its members” (p. 12).
Advocating for a positive sense of togetherness is not automatic. Barry noted that the first step is to understand the children and their context. This falls on the leader. Barry said,
The leader of that building, if they are not conscious of the differences in their schools or the populations and the different background, the different perceptions of the students in the building, then how can you address those needs and the individual differences if you do not understand or are even aware of them?
While some may argue that meeting the needs of students is limited to socioemotional needs, John does not agree. John believes that the culture of care he has tried to develop in the school does not negate a culture of learning. He sees this as a paradigm shift in focus; that is, rather than a focus on test scores and annual measureable objectives as the most important work of schools, the primary driving focus is meeting the needs of children both within and outside of school. Meeting these needs is also essential because John trusted that this translated to motivation to learn and the ability to perform.
We have to try to meet the individual needs of those kids which means we have to put in a lot of extra work with them, being very creative with them, as much as we possibly can, to try to meet the needs of those students. So we provide additional services. We spend extra time with the students to get them up to grade level. We make sure that we put them in the best possible environment.
Meeting the needs of the students, at times, also means meeting the needs of parents as well. Barry shared a story where, by working with the parent, the child’s needs were met and he successfully moved forward as a part of the school community.
When parents come in who have difficult kids and they come into our structure, it is a difficult adjustment. Although we try to meet individual needs, we still have standards. We have one kid who came to us as a freshman who had been in jail a couple of times. Mom has enabled him and defended him throughout all these processes. Mom was also actually participating in fights with the kid in the community. Everyone told us we were stupid for bringing him onto our campus. He cannot do anything for us. He should not be playing sports. Throughout the years, the mother became one of our best parents on our campus because we realized that she was part of the problem. So we were able to take a kid who had low expectations of himself, his mother did not have any expectations of him and protected him in any circumstances, whether he was right or wrong and society says he will not be anything but a convicted felon, where now he is a high school graduate and going on to college. I think the structure that we put into place to make sure we met that kid’s individual needs allowed us to guide him to a place where his whole family grew and he was able to finish high school and better himself and go on to college.
Both Barry and John were passionate about discovering the needs of the marginalized students and working to meet them. Considering context and establishing relationships, they believed, was the pathway to accomplishing this.
Emotional Connection
Emotional connection, as described by McMillan and Chavis (1986), encompasses a breadth of features. Shared history, or at least an identification with that history, is an essential part of connecting, along with relationships, bonds, and interactions. This may also include emotional ties through experiencing risks, pain, or joy with the members of the community. For purposes of this study, however, investment is the critical element. An emotional investment in the members of the community, both principal and student, seals the sense of community. Throughout the interviews, the principals were passionate about the marginalized students with whom they worked. Connecting with these children, serving as their voice, and helping shape them into productive members of the larger community was a mission for these two principals. John’s voice broke as he explained,
We have to take care of every one of them that we can. Like I said, you never know which one of those kids will make a difference, to make the change that we all need. . . . Someone cared about me. I need to care about others. I think that is where educators need to start. From there we go to pedagogy and structural changes that have to happen to get that across. But it starts with the individual. It starts with the kids.
Barry also impressed on his emotional investment with the students in his school. He sought to make the school a place
where everybody has an equal chance to be the best that they can possibly be. It is where we are not going to discriminate against any group because of anything that makes them different from others. It is treating all kids with dignity and respect so that they know that their value is of substance, that they mean something to somebody somewhere. That they are given the opportunity to be whatever they want to be and are successful at it, regardless of what their background may be.
Barry often credited his parents for believing in him and making him feel valued. The emotional connection that he experienced from that investment in him as a worthwhile person transferred to his belief system in his current position as a leader. He expressed that these connections gave him
the opportunity to say to these kids, “You are worth something.” Regardless of where you come from, you actually have the ability to be anything that you want . . . I’ve been allowed to work with kids to expose them to new things that they don’t have and other experiences. All of these things lead me to be conscientious of where kids are coming from, in order to make sure that we make them feel valued, that they can be whatever it is they want, and grow from their current position to be wherever it is that they want to end up.
Emotional connection is powerful, according to these principals. Connecting through relationships, interacting with students on an individual basis, and offering encouragement and opportunities tie young people to the community. This link serves as motivation to remaining in the community and increases receptivity to assimilating into the community.
Discussion
The narratives of the two principals in this study tell the story of leadership in different contexts, shaping school communities where children are safe and cared for. While both worked to enhance teaching and learning in their schools, they did so in a culture of care which put the student at the center of their agency. Building a sense of community and a view toward meeting student needs rather than a focus on standardized numbers as a measure of success were all elements of the work of Barry and John.
Building a sense of community in and with the students in their schools was a core function of their leadership. This was particularly important for the context in which they worked. John’s context was a rural community steeped in poverty and one in which an appreciation for, as well as a support of, education was often nonexistent. The context of Barry’s school was a large urban high school in a community surrounded by the vestiges of urban living. Providing a safe place for adolescents where they felt a sense of community was essential to both of these principals. Feeling a sense of community may be linked to a student’s sense of belonging. Both belonging and membership relate to McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) idea that these elements lead to fit with the larger group and acceptance into the group. Acceptance into the group gives the members a sense of identity. The element of influence to conform to the community was based in the values of the principals and modeled through their behavior.
While the contexts of the schools may have been different, data analyzed through the lens of the sense of community theory (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) point to two critical elements cited by both principals as necessary to providing a sense of community for the students. Evidenced through narratives about their students, the beliefs and behaviors of Barry and John were articulated by them through the lens of providing structure and establishing processes.
Noddings (1988, 1997) pointed out that principals and teachers can establish a culture of care through organizational structures promoting care, modeling care, and engaging with students to demonstrate care. In doing so, principals and teachers, as part of the relationship dyad, will receive respect and consideration from the cared for child.
Barry and John both placed strong emphasis on structure. As part of this structure, the end goal was to provide a culture for marginalized students that gave them a positive environment with which to identify. By formulating a structure, they also formulated an identity for the students within that structure. Underscoring phrases such as “We are all Mountain Top High School” and “The Gulf Coast Way” connected the students to that identity, an identity founded in a set of beliefs centered on belonging and opportunity and demonstrated by behavior which was modeled by the leaders.
Barry and John both used the word “value” as they discussed their ethic of care. Caring for the child was innate to these principals. Again and again, the principals spoke of the value of each child, meeting the needs of the child, and looking to the child’s future as they helped make their present of worth. Their daily actions demonstrated respect for and value in each child, both within and beyond the school walls. Moreover, they positioned part of their caregiving by instilling self-pride and school pride.
Schwartz’s (2006) broad-based value of universalism was clearly a prioritized value that guided the actions of both principals studied here. The idea of tolerance and protecting the welfare of the children under their care was evident in their behaviors and actions, as described by these principals. Barry and John, principals in different micro-contexts, held many of the same beliefs about children, including processes for meeting needs and modeling positive behaviors, and clearly expressed by the value of protecting the welfare of the students they led. As previously conveyed, meeting needs might include the parent, who sometimes needed as much care as the child. Perhaps addressing needs came from the processes that reached beyond the school, including additional services, such as John’s “Prom Closet” or weekend backpacks filled with food. By meeting the needs of the marginalized children, the principals continued to convey their message that the school community was a community of care, thereby strengthening the emotional connection of the student to this community. In their behaviors, these principals de-emphasized deficits and stressed the ways in which the children needed to be supported. Moreover, modeling positive behaviors and expecting the same from the student, increased their influence in shaping the school community.
Caring for the student in efforts to build a community for the students was not something they worked toward but just something they did. The research questions for this study sought to describe the articulations of two principals regarding their beliefs and behaviors in establishing a sense of community for students in their schools. Both principals expressed similar beliefs and the need for a safe and embracing community for students, referred to similar sources for founding their beliefs, and voiced like processes, including structure and identity to bring about community. However, a closer examination of the words of each principal shine a light on how each described their behaviors in building community.
As earlier noted, university professors and school district personnel suggested principals based on criteria for a “school community building” leader. Barry, a principal of 12 years, had established himself as just such a leader. John, on the other hand, was recognized for community building in his university program and his role as a teacher. As a first-year principal, his reputation preceded him. Thus, John, still learning to build a community for students based on his values, which informed his behaviors, articulated his process differently than did Barry, who had worked on building community for students in his school for over a decade.
When faced with challenges, John tended to frame the solutions in terms of “I” where Barry explained in terms of “we.” Relating a story regarding race relations among students, John said he gathered a school assembly and he discussed the problem so that all students and all faculty knew where he stood, what his values were, and what was expected of the school community in embracing students of color. Barry, on the other hand, told the story of a young man with a mother who supported him in his disruptive behavior. Barry stated that
what we do is, we try to involve the parents as much as we possibly can . . . to talk to them about what we are doing in the end and explain why we are doing some of the things.
Both were expressing their values through actions but how they did so was quite different.
Likewise, in assimilating the students to a culture of learning, John worked through the teachers, while Barry worked directly with the child. John believed in providing information, seeing “deficits based on data . . . opportunities for those deficits to be reduced and I bring in much professional development.” Barry saw children who have “a lot going on in [their] personal life, they are bringing those same things to school. They don’t have anyone they are comfortable talking to.” Barry develops a safe place and sense of community by personally guiding the student. He works to probe
why they are not being successful in the classroom . . . I will do some additional tutoring with that kid or I will work with that kid while they are in a classroom with others. Conference with them. I will try to find out what the root cause of the problem is and, a lot of times, it is just that they missed the steps early on.
The elements of building community, according to the theory of McMillan and Chavis (1986), were voiced by the two principals in this study. While both principals articulated the need for structure as a way to frame the community, John spoke in terms of the need for regimen and Barry spoke of the need for standards, establishing a sense of belonging. Where John discussed meeting the needs of the individual in the community, Barry talked about the needs of the whole. In establishing the emotional connections, John said, “I need to care for them.” Barry said, “I need to give them dignity.” These differences are subtle but important. The new principal voiced a much narrower view and the work of establishing community was framed singularly. As the experienced principal of over a decade, Barry framed his community in terms of the whole, in terms of “us.”
Conclusion
This research examined the beliefs and behaviors of two principals as they sought to establish a sense of community in their students. The descriptions from Barry and John told of a sense of community developed through structure and processes which supported membership and belonging, influence, meeting needs, and emotional connections, the essential elements of this study’s framework, McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) Sense of Community Theory.
While a causal effect of experience and success of community building cannot be made, particularly as the data are limited to the perceptions of two principals, nonetheless, consideration should be given to the differences in how the experienced and the inexperienced principal approached building the sense of community. John, as a new principal (and never having served as an assistant principal), was learning on the job how to lead a school. While he valued the idea of community and believed that a sense of community would support marginalized students, as a novice, his lens was a narrow one. As a result, John’s responses indicated that he built community by continuing to enact programs begun by his predecessor and presented his expectations as pronouncements. Barry articulated community building in terms of bringing in other voices and not a single-handed effort. He articulated a community, built for the individual child’s needs within the structure of the whole.
I acknowledge that this study is limited by the sample undertaken. Self-reporting of two principals provides only one perspective of the school community. While John and Barry created conditions for marginalized children to feel valued and a part of the school community, is this sufficient for success, if success is measured as completing school and moving on to become productive citizens? For students, is this sufficient to motivate adolescents to complete high school and/or serve as a preventative to dropping out? Does the sense of community belonging hold true for elementary school students? The voice of students in future research may help answer these questions.
In creating a sense of community, principals must consider the groups of stakeholders who contribute to that community. Teachers, in particular, must be taken into account when developing school community. While teachers were beyond the scope of this study, future research might consider whether the elements of McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) Sense of Belonging Theory hold true for teachers.
Widening the scope of the community to outside of the school is another way to study the sense of community, particularly in light of the importance placed on structure and processes by Barry and John. Does embracing the community beyond the school in terms of membership, influence, fulfilling needs and emotional connections support marginalized students in their educational success? Is community a bounded system where the sense of belonging is only necessary within the school and not necessary in the community beyond the school?
Building a sense of community, or a positive school culture for that matter, is an essential school leader skill. However, how to develop a sense of community for the student is not often given significance in the literature. For Barry and John, an insistence on valuing the child in their community was uppermost, based on the values they held. They were committed to build a connection in their marginalized students through the structures and processes they implemented. However, the behaviors, approach, and lens through which they implemented those processes, differed greatly with the inexperienced and experienced principal. Building a community in a school is a difficult process. There are many layers to community and grappling with these layers and reaching all aspects of the community is challenging. The key is supporting the individual while assimilating the one into the whole. If done properly, success will follow.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1.
To ensure confidentiality, all community, school, and principal identifying information has been changed for both cases.
References
|
Bredeson, P. V., Klar, H. W., Johansson, O. (2011). Context-responsive leadership: Examining superintendent leadership in context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/739 Google Scholar | |
|
Dempster, N., Carter, L., Freakley, M., Parry, L. (2004). Contextual influences on school leaders in Australia: Some data from a recent study of principals’ ethical decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 24, 163-174. doi:10.1080/1363243041000695804 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Firestone, W. A., Herriott, R. E. (1982). Prescriptions for effective elementary schools don’t fit secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 51-53. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Hallinger, P., Leithwood, K. (1994). Exploring the effects of principal leadership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 206-218. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hausman, C. S., Crow, G. M., Sperry, D. J. (2000). Portrait of the “ideal principal”: Context and self. NASSP Bulletin, 84(617), 5-14. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
McMillan, D. W., Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215-230. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Noddings, N. (1997). A morally defensible mission for schools in the 21st century. In Clinchy, E. (Ed.), Transforming public education: A new course for America’s future (pp.27-37). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of educational research, 70(3), 323-367. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications. Revue francaise de sociologie, 47, 249-288. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
Author Biography
Pamela S. Angelle is associate professor and graduate program coordinator in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Dr. Angelle’s research interests include teacher leadership, organizational conditions and contexts which contribute to a collegial school community, and as a member of the International School Leader Development Network, research on international perspectives of social justice leadership in schools.