6 Page Double Spaced Case Study


Question Description

Read the Seeing What They Want to See Case Study (attached in the Module) through first to get familiar with the issues. Then read it again carefully, making notes on what you believe the issues, successes, or problems to be. The focus of your paper is the leadership/followership issues present in the Case Study.

Approach this case study with the assumption that none of the principals involved is racist and focus on the leadership issues of the case. Although racism can be an issue you discuss, it should not be the focus of your paper. Rather, it should focus on the leadership issues involving the three principals that the facts presented in the case study bring to light based on your analysis. You also need to asses the impact the leadership (or lack there of) of the principals impacted the teachers. Your paper should also not be a re-cap of the Case Study or case study methodology.


This is a critical thinking and analysis paper. At a minimum it should:

  • Discuss the leadership of the three principals and the impact it had on the 6 teachers.
  • Be in APA format including parenthetical references (Author, Date) in the text. See APA Formatting Refresher for questions. The APA paper template provided in Week 4 can be used for this paper also.
  • Be organized using Introduction, Body (with three major headings in the Case Analysis Guidelines below), and Conclusion
  • Be at least six pages not counting the Title Page and References.
  • You must cite the textbook (Peter G. Northouse. Leadership: Theory & Practice. (7th edition) Sage Publications. [ISBN9781483317533], Case Study, and two outside academic sources. Although you must cite the Case Study, it does not count towards the two required outside academic sources.

Identification of Problems (25%)

Discuss the three principals and six teachers individually, do not lump them together. It is essential that you provide a sharply focused diagnosis of issues and key leadership problems and that you demonstrate a good grasp of the presented situation. Again, your focus is on the leadership issues not, solely on racism. What leadership theories are present? Consider beginning your analysis with an overview of the situation and the significant problems and leadership issues that confront the parties involved. State problems/issues as clearly and precisely as you can. Unless it is necessary to do so for emphasis, avoid recounting facts (assume your professor and classmates have read the case). Also, for the sake of analysis do not assume that this is a case of blatant racism or sexism. In most cases, discrimination is not blatant and can exist even when those in leadership positions think they are being fair and equitable.

Analysis and Evaluation (35%)

This is a critical thinking and analysis paper. As such, you must demonstrate that you understand relevant Leadership concepts and use them in analyzing the situation. Support your conclusions with factual evidence and scholarly research about the particular leadership issues that are presented. Your interpretation of the evidence and leadership information you have gathered on the situation should be reasonable and objective.

Remember, discuss the three principals and their two teachers individually, do not lump all of the principals and teachers together. What leadership theories do the principals use? How do their two teachers respond to their leadership style? What role does race and gender play? What role does culture play? Is the Case Study bias?

Avoid rhetoric such as "I think," "I feel," and "I believe" and write "My analysis shows," instead. Be sure and give credit to all outside references using APA Guidelines.

Recommendations (25%)

The final section of the case analysis should consist of a set of definite leadership recommendations and a plan of action. Your set of recommendations should address the problems/issues you identified and analyzed. What could be done to remedy the current situation and what can be done to prevent the situation in the future? If the recommendations come as a surprise or do not follow logically from the analysis, the effect is to weaken greatly your suggestions of what to do.

State how your leadership recommendations will solve the problems you identified. Be sure your leadership recommendations are workable and affordable (where will the funding come from to implement your recommendations?) in terms of acceptance by the persons involved.

State your recommendations in sufficient detail to be meaningful. Avoid recommending anything you would not yourself be willing to do if you were in the situation or a solution that is unworkable (e.g. require all teachers to live in the school district). If your solution requires funding, you must identify where that funding would come from.

Finally, address whether or not the solutions for an educational setting would work in a business setting. Why or why not?

Overall Writing, APA Format, etc (15%)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 DOI 10.1007/s11256-014-0299-0 Seeing What They Want to See: Racism and Leadership Development in Urban Schools Christopher B. Knaus Published online: 14 August 2014  Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract This critical race theory (CRT)-framed qualitative study (n = 9) examined racism within a context of urban teacher leadership development. A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with three White principals, who each identified one White and one African American teacher as ‘‘most promising’’ leadership potential. These teachers were interviewed, leading to analysis of principal support and teacher perceptions of being supported. The findings clarify principals who adopted a language of equity, while simultaneously arguing that their White teachers were more effective (based erroneously on the belief that the White teachers’ students had higher test scores). The African American teachers, on the other hand, were framed as experts in culturally responsive approaches, given increased teaching responsibilities, and not provided similar leadership opportunities. This difference in opportunities and expectations had lasting impacts on the African American teachers, who internalized the lack of resources and negative messages they received from their principals. The paper concludes with CRT implications for inclusive leadership development processes. Keywords Urban schools  Principals  Mentorship  Teacher leadership  Racism While serving as an administrator of an urban educational leadership program, I interacted with dozens of African American educators with aspirations for school leadership. Yet I also witnessed dozens of less experienced, less communitycentered, less transformative White educators mentored into leadership roles, while many African American educators continued teaching in the same classrooms. As a White male critical race theory (CRT)-framed scholar, I wanted to examine the roots to what seemed like racism to me. This study was developed to explore the C. B. Knaus (&) Education Program, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA e-mail: educate@uw.edu 123 Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 421 realities I saw in urban districts, where White principals appeared to favor White teachers, regardless of experience, expertise, or leadership within the community. I interviewed three White principals, who in turn identified two ‘‘most promising’’ future teacher leaders (one White, one African American) at each school. I was not hoping to find racism; I was hopeful that perhaps because I am a race scholar, I was overexposed to educators who most experience racism. In what comes next, I present my theoretical framework, clarify the qualitative research methods used, and discuss CRT informed findings. Theoretical Framework This study began with the recognition that racism shapes the larger context of schooling within which teachers and school leaders operate, and used CRT as a comprehensive framework for applying research methods, developing study procedures, and for examining the resulting data. CRT has increasingly been used as such a framework for qualitative studies, as a tool to shape curriculum development, as a conceptual analytic tool, and as a philosophy to help understand the nature of race, racism, and institutional responses (or lack thereof) to addressing racialized exclusion (Dixson and Rousseau 2005; Parker and Lynn 2002; Solórzano and Yosso 2002). I integrate Ladson-Billings (1999) and Solórzano and Yosso (2002) into an integrated framework adapted toward a context of school leadership development within racialized educational structures. This study is based upon the notion that racism as everywhere and all the time, extrapolated from Delgado’s argument that racism is normal in the US (Delgado 1995). Racial oppression led to the formation of America and racial inequality has remained the fabric of American imperialism (Roy 2004; Zinn 1995). Within the US, educational disparities are reinforced by unemployment rates, exposure to violence, poverty, disproportionate incarceration rates, and a lack of access to adequate health care and quality food (Aud et al. 2010; Howard 2007; Mauer and King 2007; US Department of Education 2008a; National Urban League 2010; Pettit and Western 2004). The second CRT tenet used to frame this study argues that schools (and the education system at large) reflect, reproduce, and justify racism. While many history lessons superficially acknowledge race, the details of contemporary racism are hidden by most public school curriculum (Apple 1995; Loewen 1995; Husband 2012; Macedo and Bartolome 1999). Schools that serve African American students are, by and large, underfunded and in greater disrepair than schools that serve more White students, and this has been the case throughout US history (Anderson 1988; Dancy 2013; Knaus 2007; Kozol 1991, Watkins 2001). Teachers that serve African American students also tend to be less well trained, less well paid, and less experienced than those who teach predominantly White student populations (Darling-Hammond 2004; Kalogrides and Loeb 2013; Oakes et al. 2004). Welldocumented educational disparities span the K-12 spectrum, a result of unequal funding, unequal support, and unequal commitment to teach African Americans in culturally responsive, inclusive, academically rigorous ways (Delpit 2012; Gay 2000; Howard 2008; Kozol 1991). 123 422 Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 Such disparities reiterate what multicultural education and critical race theorists have been saying for years: inequalities are structurally built into the curriculum, school funding, the ways teachers teach, and the ways knowledge is constructed (Banks 1993; Delpit 2012; Gay 2000; Kozol 1969; Ladson-Billings 1995; Sampson and Garrison-Wade 2011; Woodson 1990). These inequalities are used as justification for system-wide failures to adequately educate communities of color, just as operational definitions of merit, intelligence, and quality continue to embrace Whiteness, while devaluing multilingual, multicultural communities and different ways of thinking, talking, and living (Au 2009; Epstein 2012; Macedo and Bartolome 1999). The third tenet of CRT reflects Solórzano and Yosso’s (2002) argument to challenge the ‘‘traditional research paradigm, texts, and theories used to explain students of color’’ (p. 24). As a research methodology, CRT centers the voices of those directly impacted by racism within educational systems; such voices inform recognition and understanding of how systems operate to maintain racism and other forms of oppression (Annamma et al. 2013; Evans-Winters and Esposito 2010; Pratt-Clarke 2010; Trucios-Haynes 2001). The historical connection between racism and schools has limited definitions of knowledge precisely because people of color have systematically been excluded from being seen as writers and scholars. Smith (1999) clarifies: ‘‘Having been immersed in the Western academy which claims theory as thoroughly Western, which has constructed all the rules by which the indigenous world has been theorized, indigenous voices have been overwhelmingly silent’’ (p. 29). Thus this study uses CRT to center the perspectives of educators of color, in order to contextualize White educator perspectives. The final tenet for the purposes of this study is the notion of interest convergence, which has been framed as the political and legal orientation of the US to act in the interest of African Americans only when such an act also furthers the interest of the greater White population (Bell 2004). Bell (2004) argued ‘‘relief from racial discrimination has come only when policymakers recognize that such relief will provide a clear benefit for the nation or portions of the populace’’ (p. 49). Policies and practice in the US only respond to racism when change would also directly benefit Whites. Interest convergence is also reflected in an embrace of social justice terminology. As activists have argued for more inclusion of ethnic studies, multicultural education, and social justice, many academic programs have inserted social justice language into their titles (Sleeter and Delgado-Bernal 2004), or taken what Banks (2006) referred to as an ‘‘ethnic additive approach’’ (p. 60). Yet these additive changes avoid systems transformation and do not adequately ‘‘support the concerns, abilities, and perspectives of culturally diverse students’’ (Sleeter 1996, p. 217). CRT suggests that it is in the interest of White educators to adopt social justice language instead of integrating anti-racism into the foundation. This anti-change stance makes individuals who challenge racism subject to personal, professional, and institutional punishment, exacerbating racism that faculty of color already face (Bell 1994; Hassouneh 2006; Samuel and Wane 2005; Tuitt et al. 2009). These four tenets provide the theoretical justification for the study, suggest qualitative research methodology, and frame data analysis. In what follows, a 123 Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 423 literature review clarifies educational leadership pathways, as well as research methods and findings. Educational Context: Racism Facing Educators Racial disparities that impact African American students also limit opportunities for educators of color. Nationwide, 80 % of teachers are White, despite urban districts that often serve a majority student of color population (US Department of Education 2008b). This dominance sharply limits the presence of teachers of color; only 1 % of the nation’s teachers, for example, are African American males (Lewis 2006). This disparity of who teaches urban students carries into the ranks of educational leadership; the majority of urban school principals are also White; nationally, only 18 % were of color just 10 years ago (Gates et al. 2003). To address this, educators have argued for increasing the diversity of those entering into teaching and administration (Branch 2001; Brown 2005; Duncan 2010; Meyers and Smith 1999; Tillman 2005). Yet these calls have not been followed by the eradication of racial barriers. For those wanting to teach, income disparities create additional barriers. While there are alternative routes to teacher credentialing, the typical route to the classroom requires volunteer student teaching, an unpaid workload that places an additional burden on lower income families (Epstein 2012; Hill and Gillette 2005; Madda and Schultz 2009). Previous experiences also exclude African American educators, as many urban adults had negative experiences as students (Foster 1997; Gordon 2000). Standardized testing creates another range of barriers, excluding African Americans from attending, en masse, competitive colleges. Many states require passage of teacher certification exams that also limit adults of color from teaching (Applied Research Center 1999; Berlak 1999; Epstein 2012; Jacullo-Noto 1991). Many teachers of color face these barriers again when they become educational leaders (Bloom and Erlandson 2003; Brown 2005; Jones 2002; Lewis 2006). A lack of principal support, lack of clarity around which opportunities lead to career ladders, and the lack of clear leadership pipelines combine with racism and sexism to exclude potential leaders of color (Bloom and Erlandson 2003; Brown 2005; Jean-Marie et al. 2009). The underrepresentation of educational leaders of color suggests the need to nurture urban African American educators (Bloom and Erlandson 2003; Jones 2002; Loder 2005), particularly given the impact principals can have on the culture of a school (Khalifa 2011). Many educators of color were mentored along the way, yet this support did not always come from school principals or other positional leaders (Foster 1997; Gay 2003; Gay and Howard 2000; Tillman 2007). Yet principal mentoring of teachers is framed as a core responsibility of leadership (Gardiner et al. 2000; National Association of Elementary School Principals 2003). What is not clear is how African American teachers are mentored compared to White teachers (Lewis 2006; Loder 2005; Tillman 2005), though research has suggested that teacher evaluations are impacted by race bias (Delpit 2006). In most school districts, school leaders are 123 424 Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 directly responsible for evaluating teachers, and increasingly, there are efforts to link teacher pay to performance-based data (Turner 2010; Washington Times 2009). Yet much of how effectiveness is defined is based on some combination of previous student test scores, several very short observations of teachers, and alignment with the principal’s (and/or district’s) vision of the school (Marshall 2005; Podgursky and Springer 2007). These limited evaluations determine which teachers are defined as effective, which in turn shapes the type of educators encouraged to become principals. Methodology Research Questions The underlying goal of this study was to examine how urban school principals support and mentor the African American and White teachers they identified as ‘‘most-promising.’’ This study sought to address the following two research questions: (1) (2) How do White urban principals support and develop African American and White teachers identified as ‘promising future leaders’? Do African American teachers who have been identified as ‘promising future school leaders’ by their principal feel supported and enabled to become school leaders? The goals of these questions were to assess informal and formal leadership pathways, differential perceptions of support, and unintended racial barriers to leadership opportunities. Study Design In order to capture perceptions of support, three case studies were developed (Baxter and Jack 2008; Merriam 1988); each set included a principal and two teachers. To identify comparative cases, preliminary interviews were conducted with principals until three cases reflected principals with relatively similar years of experience and who identified both an African American and White teacher leader within the same school. The sample thus included three elementary school principals, who each identified two most promising candidates for school leadership (for a total of nine participants: three principals and six teachers). Once this sample was identified, the primary method of data collection came from semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Merriam 1988). I visited each school once per month over the course of 6 months, and interviewed principals four times, with each interview lasting roughly 45 min. These interviews explored principal leadership philosophies, professional orientation to developing leaders from the current teaching staff, opinions of the two ‘‘most promising future 123 Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 425 leaders,’’ and opportunities provided to each participating teacher. I also interviewed each of the two teachers three times, exploring personal and professional leadership goals, efforts taken to develop as a leader, and professional development opportunities. Interview transcripts and detailed observation notes were analyzed using grounded theory methodology to allow for the emergence of core themes (Glaser 1992; Strauss and Corbin 1994). I read through notes, identified recurring ideas, and re-read notes, thematically categorizing line-by-line quotations. These thematic categorizations were then turned into summary notes, and shared with each participant in follow up interviews, allowing participants to reflect on previous thoughts. This process ensured participants saw the progression of my understanding of their experiences and efforts and had opportunities to clarify misconceptions. After secondary interviews, observations of principal-led trainings and teacherled leadership activities were conducted. These observations corroborated principal interactions, leadership opportunities, and principal support. Observations were followed by interviews with both sets of participants (principals and teachers), in which participants reflected on observations, answered follow up questions, and clarified principal support. Teacher test scores, provided by principals, were the final data set. Each teacher administered a district-required annual performance exam for all students; the district used these scores to evaluate school-wide performance. These scores were linked to teachers, providing a comparative indicator of district-defined teacher effectiveness. Because teachers were being compared across grade levels, aggregate teacher test scores (in a district-designed ranking system of 1–10) were used, though actual scores are not reported to preserve confidentiality. The Participants Principal participants Principal Age Gender Born Years teaching Grade level Years as admin Mike Bryant 29 Male Florida 3 Fifth 4 John Cahoon 37 Male Michigan 4 Seventh 3 Michelle Michaels 31 Female Connecticut 4 First 4 Principal Mike Bryant Born and raised in a small college town in Florida, Principal Bryant attended Duke University, where he graduated with honors in 4 years, with a double major in political science and history. In his senior year, he surprised (and agonized) his parents by applying to Teach for America instead of going to graduate school in political science. He jumped at the chance to be a fifth grade teacher in the Bay Area, and after 5 weeks of training, Mr. Bryant had his own classroom, full of rambunctious African American and Latino youngsters. That first year was difficult: 123 426 Urban Rev (2014) 46:420–444 ‘‘I really had no idea what I was doing. I wasn’t like these children. In most ways, my school years were the exact opposite of theirs.’’ Raised in a ‘‘well-to-do academic-minded’’ household, Mr. Bryant was unprepared for what he termed ‘‘the dysfunction of impoverished families.’’ With little support from his principal, who came to his classroom just twice in his first year of teaching, Mr. Bryant decided to stay another year, and chastised two other teachers who left during their first year. ‘‘Look,’’ he argued, ‘‘I knew this would be hard, but I wasn’t giving up on these children. I felt I had something to prove, and was angered by these other teachers who just weren’t committed.’’ That drive led Principal Bryant to stay at the school for two additional years; by his third year, he was the second longest serving teacher at the school. He had already decided he wanted to be a principal: ‘‘I had three principals in 3 years—and none of them were committed to staying or really to us as a staff. So I just kinda realized, ‘Hey, I bet I can do this better than these guys!’’’ Mr. Bryant enrolled in a principal certificate program and was hired 5 months later. Principal Bryant remains excited about the charge: ‘‘I am here because I am a good principal; I’m organized and efficient and I don’t tolerate laziness in my staff. And in the end, I’m all about ensuring students learn what they need to go out and be successful.’’ Principal John Cahoon Principal Cahoon was born and raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan. After high school Mr. Cahoon spent a year ‘‘backpacking around Europe, doing the privileged White kid thing.’’ After a few years, Mr. Cahoon enrolled at Cornell and studied psychology so he could ‘‘understand how to help people better.’’ While in his second year at Cornell, Mr. Cahoon enrolled in a course ‘‘that covered all these special education concerns,’’ and upon returning home for an extended weekend, observed his sister in school for a day. Through his brotherly intervention, the family learned of her dyslexia, and this experience shaped ‘‘a healthy dose of skept ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: UC Berkeley

here buddy check it out



Leadership Case Study Analysis
Leadership is one of the essential elements of any organization. There are various
leadership styles that leaders can adopt. The leadership style adopted by a given leader
contributes to the ability of the organization to achieve its goals. Some of the characteristics that
leaders should exhibit include the ability to be visionary, lead others, introduce changes, be
confident as well as be compassionate among others. Various institutions in the society call for
the adoption of different styles of leadership leading in a school, as a principal calls for the
principal to adopt a variety of leadership characteristics which will ensure adequate treatment of
all involved parties. That way, it will be possible to achieve the set goals. The discussion below
examines a case study to identify the leadership styles adopted by various principals in leading
their schools. In the case analysis, recommendations will be given on how best to improve
leadership strategies for each of the three principals involved.
Identification of the problem
Principal John Cahoon
From the way he joined the teaching career, principal John Cahoon comes out as
insightful. He scanned the environment around him and identified issues. The identification of
problems in his background gives him an opportunity to come up with new ways to solve the
problem. However, one of the significant challenges facing Cahoon as a leader is his inability to
be actively involved in his job (Anderson & Sun, 2017). For example, Ms. Franklin despite being
chosen by the principle as one of the best teachers expressed discontent on the fact that the
principal rarely took the time to assess her. That shows the principal was operating on favoritism.

Teacher Johnson
Ms. Johnson is one of the favorite teachers identified by John Cahoon. She is white and receives
more favors than her colleague Ms. Franklin. One of the issues that she experiences as a
prospective leader is the fact that she advocates for opportunities for people that are close to the
manager (Amanchukwu et al, 2015). The fact that Principal Cahoon had a shared history means
that she should receive more opportunities than other teachers. Therefore, her problem is she
believes in nepotism.
Teacher Franklin
As the secon...

flag Report DMCA

awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors