Education Leadership Policy

Abstract

This article examines the role of educational leadership in the broad context of U.S. educational history so as to understand what events, studies, commissions, recommendations and policies have affected the role of school leaders in elementary and secondary public education. The article examines the past and present educational models, and in particular explores the essential differences between authoritarian and democratic educational models. It then applies these models to current U.S. public education policy to inspect the position of the United States' current public educational model.

Overview

Educational leadership within the U.S. public educational system has constantly adapted to new circumstances that American society has imposed upon it. The political and public expectations imposed upon today's educational leaders, the objectives that current leaders establish as priorities, their educational philosophies and styles of management, and even their daily routines as school leaders have changed during the course of American history. The impact of these changes cannot be adequately understood without first examining—at least briefly and generally—the history of American public education. An overview of the larger socio-economic and historical events that affected past public educational philosophy and policy is essential if we are to clearly understand the future role of U.S. educational leadership. Additionally, examining past public education problems and issues helps explain educational leadership's current crossroads, thus giving us a better picture of an emerging new role; such analysis can assist politicians, educators, institutions and citizens in helping to formulate the correct legislation, programs and policies for shaping effective educational leadership for this millennium.

Summarizing Education Leadership History. One of the most significant periods in America's system of secondary education occurred from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Before this period, the government was not overly concerned with developing well-envisioned educational policies, so there was not yet a comprehensive national system for ensuring educational standards. However, this lack of standardized policy was not necessarily a failing of the federal government since there were far fewer colleges, and one-room country schoolhouses were not in dire need of comprehensive educational policies for guidance. In an age of settlers and the Homestead Act, learning basic reading, writing, and arithmetic were an adequate set of objectives.

But the need for defining specific educational public policy increased as American society outgrew its settlement period; the nation was transformed by railroads and telegraphs spanning the entire country, and by the rigorous industrialism that arose and consequently placed new burdens on the nation's public schools. Thus, it is not surprising that after the American Civil War had ended, as rural populations and European immigrants flooded into the burgeoning cities, the federal government initiated its first earnest attempt at formulating a comprehensive policy to guide public education. In 1893, the Committee on Secondary School Studies—often referred to as the "Committee of Ten"—gathered to analyze the status quo of U.S. public education; the committee issued the "Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary Studies," which outlined its proposal for standardizing secondary education. This seminal report established the U.S. public high school curricula, and set the age levels at which students should begin their courses of study. It also established the weekly number of hours—as well as the specific number of years—that students should spend on the standardized curricula (Passow, 1975, p. 163).

After the Committee of Ten, other committees and organizations, such as the "Carnegie Unit" or the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, continued to shape and develop the U.S. public educational system. This period from the late 1800s until the beginning of World War II represents the most significant phase wherein the unique character of America's educational system was formed. The U.S. educational system made some significant departures from the European system, departures that, in many ways, are what made American high schools distinctly American. For example, foreign languages were drastically lowered in priority, while vocational training received much more emphasis (Passow, 1975, p. 163). These recommendations and reports of the 1930s are what led to a long period of marginalized foreign language study, while vocational "shop classes" became part of every high school's educational program. However, for this period of American history, such prioritizations were perhaps effective and logical: in a nation of booming industrialism, students did well to learn the skills of making furniture and overhauling car engines—whereas studying foreign languages, at that time, held much less practical advantage. Students passing through such a system were well-prepared for a long phase of American history that historians consider a time of "nation-building."

However, when this era had ended after the Great Depression and World War II the nation entered a period wherein technology became a top priority. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first man-made object to orbit the Earth. Americans were bewildered, and understandably concerned, about falling behind technologically. The U.S. government decided that it was time to re-examine the public educational system. As Weaver points out about the Sputnik launch, "President Eisenhower challenged Americans to strengthen math and science education, and the educational system answered the call" (Weaver, 2007, p. 7). Part of answering that call was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which earmarked government funds for strengthening those particular areas of education that had originally been de-emphasized: sciences, math, and foreign languages (Passow, 1975, p. 168).

Approximately a decade later, America found itself once again in need of examining its public education system; the cultural revolution of the 1960s had much to do with this particular re-examination. The student uprisings and sit-ins against conservative, authoritarian leadership—within government and educational institutions alike—raised obvious and important questions: Why are so many intelligent students resisting formal education? And what was causing a "generation gap" that seemed more like a generation chasm? Such questions, provoked by the enormous social upheaval of that period, caused educational leaders to initiate new analyses of the public educational system. In the early 1970s, several national studies got under way. Three of these studies, sponsored by governmental departments such as the National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education, were concentrated upon developing an accurate picture of the state of America's secondary educational system. The findings of these studies had very few positive or optimistic statements; in fact, one of the studies, published by the United States Office of Education (USOE) concluded that, "We have succeeded in producing a youth society housed in an overburdened institution excessively isolated from the reality of the community and the world" (Passow, 1975, p. 171). The other reports, issued by educational conferences and symposia, were concentrated on developing recommendations that might cure America's ailing educational system.

Identifying the Problems. A feature that had been prevalent in the public educational system since the outset—although ignored until the launching of the 1970s studies—was the authoritarian style of leadership entrenched within the nation's educational system. The study of the 1970s finally grappled with this problem. One of the 1970s reports advised that administrative leadership should "focus on strategies for using an information rich environment rather than maintaining the role and philosophy of serving a role that is information-dispensing" (Passow, 1975, p. 181). Harber says about the authoritarian educational model, "With this form of school organization, came a view of knowledge as factual and certain, and of there being one true answer to questions. It was the purpose of schools to transmit these 'true facts' to their students" (Harber 1997, p. 181). Harber also says that authoritarianism "is a model that stems from the introduction of mass schooling at the end of the nineteenth century, when a key purpose of the spread of formal education was to socialize young people into the routinized and subordinate norms and behaviors required of workers in large-scale bureaucratic organizations such as factories and offices" (Harber, 1997, p.181).

Although the studies and reports issued in the 1970s make no specific mention of an "authoritarian model," the reports do express the same fundamental viewpoint as Harber about where educational leaders should take the educational system—and some of the reports acknowledge, at least implicitly, that an authoritarian model is prevalent. The United States Office of Education (USOE) report says that "student participation in school management has been kept at a safe distance… more out of the constraints inherent in the management of large institutions than in real philosophic hostility to democratic concepts" (Passow, 1975, pp. 174–175), which indicates the panel's awareness of an authoritarian leadership model in public education, though the passage blames the problem on organizational size rather than an intentional (or perhaps unconscious) authoritarian philosophy. It should also be noted that the panels of the day were quite aware of the bureaucratic unwieldiness of the public education system, and made recommendations for relieving that as well (Passow, 1975, p. 176).

Many of the recommendations from the panels of the 1970s are also quite progressive and inherently point to a need for transitioning educational leadership from its authoritarian model into what Harber (1997) calls the "democratic educational model." For example, the USOE panel advises that a comprehensive education should be focused on five main areas that, when considered collectively, seem concentrated on enlightening the student as an individual; as a participating citizen as opposed to an obedient and well-trained subject. The five areas of emphasis are: personal values, citizenship, the arts, the humanities, and career education. Three of these five areas are traditionally the domains of liberal education; as for the other two, the panel advises that career education should be "moved out of the high school," and education for citizenship should be "community-centered" (Passow, 1975, p. 176). Thus, the 1970s studies make recommendations that guide public education leaders to open more to the outside world and allow teachers and students to collaborate in decision-making, which are the signposts of a democratic education model.

Other recommendations from the studies and reports of the 1970s also guided public education toward a democratic model. For example, the National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education (the Kettering Commission report) lists such priorities as removing sexism and racism from textbooks through state legislation, focusing on basic international literacy, promoting equal opportunities and recognition of female students, and cultivating a "global education" that is concerned with "scientific, ecological and economic issues that affect everyone." Also in keeping with the collaborative nature of democracy, the USOE report "urges creation of programs which would be designated participatory education " (Passow, 1975, p. 177).

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was designed to help children from low-income families to have equal opportunities in education. In 1970, President Nixon gave his "Special Message to the Congress on Educational Reform," and in this speech indicated the direction that the U.S. government would take public education. Nixon said, "For years the fear of 'national standards' has been one of the bugaboos of education" and he declared that the National Institute of Education would develop methods of measuring school performance and what he called "educational output," a term that pushed the idea of education into becoming more of a measurable product, or what others have come to view as a market commodity, as we shall see. Aside from measuring performance, Nixon also set out another prime directive. In that same message to Congress, Nixon said, "From these considerations we derive another new concept: accountability" (Nixon, 1970). The thrust of the U.S. educational system under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), with its emphasis on standardized testing and its stress on the "accountability" of educators, could be considered a reinstatement of Nixon's earlier education policy. The policy drastically reshaped education in the US before attracting widespread criticism from virtually all points on the political spectrum.

Making an Assessment. NCLB provided the comprehensive reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and this is where educational policy remained until the 2015 signing of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) by President Barack Obama. Over time, educational leadership has slowly been taken from the leadership of local administration and has been nationalized. School leadership today — if it is to consist of local educators — must satisfy the regulations, programs, and standardized testing that the federal government has imposed, and only then can public school administrators attempt to lead their schools toward their own visions of public education.

David Kirp identifies the 1970s as the turning point in what he calls a rise of market-driven thinking in higher education. In a 2004 interview, he says that the "relatively no-strings attached federal funding policies dry up," and there is a shift in outlook, so that higher education begins moving toward a market-driven philosophy (Kirp, 2004, p. 1). Luis Baez makes a similar observation about the 1970s when he compares the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act to its legislative predecessor, the ESEA. Baez says that President Johnson's legislation "did not create situations where the federal government was specifically directing pedagogy … they [education leaders] were doing a lot of remedial stuff, taking kids out of classrooms and providing them with services," and he notes that the NCLB caused bilingual education to suffer because the federal government created so many impediments that removed school leaders' flexibility which the ESEA had initially provided, (Capellaro, 2004, pp. 23–24).

Apple (2007) notes that the No Child Left Behind Act redefined "accountability" as something "reducible to scores on standardized achievement" (p. 110), so that NCLB took the position that "only that which is measurable is important," and this caused what Apple refers to as an "audit culture" (p. 112). Apple also notes this trend of viewing education as a market commodity or consumer product: "Indeed, the movement toward marketization and 'choice' requires the production of standardized data based on standardized processes and 'products' so that comparisons can be made and so that 'consumers' have relevant information to make choices on a market" (p. 111).

Along with this process of commercializing education into a product, there has been a significant diminishment of local control, according to Apple (and Baez, quoted above); the process has also been accompanied by a militarization of schools and the larger society (Apple, 2007, p. 110). Apple—and other authors whom Apple quotes—insist that this market approach to education, as though public education should be treated as a commodity and forced into the language of buying and selling, does damage to public education even as it removes the authority of public educators; it forces relationships into a "market model" that makes students the "customers" of teachers. Apple believes that public education should be safeguarded from this (p. 115).

Harber (1997) writes that democratic governments are "more concerned with questions of access, funding and examination results rather than values and goals" (p. 183). And this holds true for the United States. Instead of pursuing the slow, difficult path of significantly reforming the educational model of public education, the U.S. government has increasingly pursued an authoritarian model, evidenced by its enforcement of standardized testing and the punishment of schools that do not meet government criteria. This forces the public education system to continue in its outdated "information-dispensing" role. According to Harber, standardized exams—increasingly structured as multiple choice tests that offer one true answer to relatively uncomplicated questions—prevent public education leaders from transforming their local institutions into a more democratic model of education.

When answering whether educational leaders are still practicing an authoritarian model of education (with an additional "market" approach added into this), the answer becomes complicated: Their main partner, the federal government, highly encourages educational leaders to obey its policies, which standardize education and view it as a commodity; this policy pushes an authoritarian model of leadership from the top down; but, in spite of this, many educational leaders, even as they have been authoritatively burdened with additional bureaucratic responsibilities, are working hard to find innovative methods for creating a more democratic model of leadership; in doing so, they are following the forgotten recommendations of the government's neglected 1970s advisory panels, and are doing their best to work around the federal government's mandates so as to lead their schools with personal visions and beliefs about education.

Creating New Studies. Some leaders of public education have found it necessary to begin funding their own studies so as to create an informed plan for significantly shaping public education in their local institutions. A 2000 study commissioned by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Secondary Schools in a New Millennium: Demographic Certainties, Social Realities, gave educational leaders some important facts to consider as they attempt to innovate their profession on their own. The study is revealing: The school-age population is set to change radically. Hispanics and Asians will account for more than 60 percent of the US population growth by 2025, which will significantly alter the school-age population. A large percentage of students will enter US secondary schools speaking a language other than English (Tirozzi, 2004). In response, scholars and administrators alike have examined potential methods of increasing the number of minority principles and other educational leaders, calling for greater diversity in such positions in order to better reflect and serve the increasingly diverse student population.

Another study, done by the Educational Research Service (ERS) for the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, indicates that there is already a shortage of principals in general. According to the study, "About half of the surveyed districts reported a shortage of qualified candidates for the principal positions they had attempted to fill. This shortage was present among all types of schools (rural, urban, suburban) and among all levels of vacancies (elementary, junior high/middle, and high school)" (Tirozzi, 2004, p. 24).

The study's most frequently listed hindrance to attracting public school principals is that, for the job requirements, the compensation was too low. The job stress and time-demanding work that come with a principal position were also cited as reasons that the job is not attractive. Other comments from the respondents included: "Societal problems (e.g., [student] poverty, lack of family support) make it difficult [for students] to focus on instruction; testing/accountability pressures are too great; the job is viewed as less satisfying than it had been previously; inadequate funding is available for schools." Tirozzi sums up the situation by saying, "The principals of tomorrow's schools must be instructional leaders who possess the requisite skills, capacities, and commitment to lead the accountability parade, not follow it" (Tirozzi, 2004, p. 37).

Viewpoints

Trying Out Innovations. Some educational leaders are trying to take their schools toward a more democratic model on their own. One such innovation has helped a few fortunate principals to ease the time demands of overseeing school building operations in order to dedicate much more time fulfilling the more important role of being a school leader. In one example, the 4,500-student Talbot County, Maryland system created the position of "school manager" to tend to the practical operations of schools—handling building maintenance, arranging field trips, overseeing cafeteria operations, scheduling buses before and after school—so that the county's public school principals could concentrate on being true educational leaders.

The principals in Talbot County could now concentrate on raising student performance. They also could now spend much more time observing teachers and students in classrooms, which aids them in showing teachers new methods of teaching, and gives them the time to plan professional development activities for the district's teachers. Kelly Griffith, who had been a principal in Talbot County for thirteen years, said of the system, "It really has given me more of a hands-on approach to being an instructional leader" (cited in Archer, 2004, para. 5).

Other districts have tried other innovations to make the administrative burden lighter. The Mansfield, Massachusetts, public schools have had two principals in each elementary school. In California, the Long Beach Unified district uses pairs of "co-principals" at its high schools.

But these are just a few principals whose daily tasks are highly concentrated on being an educational leader. Surveys show that many of America's 84,000 public school principals are still performing thoroughly administrative roles—but a myriad of commissioned studies consistently indicate that principals should be serving a different role. A research summary by Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) analyzed seventy studies and identified the most important aspects to a principal's job; those aspects largely have their foundations in the democratic educational model: “fostering shared beliefs, monitoring the effectiveness of school practices, and involving teachers in implementing policy” (Archer, 2004, para. 15).

There is little disagreement among educational professionals that administrator preparation in the United States also needs an overhaul. Marc S. Tucker, the president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, a Washington-based policy group that runs a training program for principals, confirmed this need: "The quality of leadership and management training in our schools of education is, on the whole, terrible" (cited in Archer, 2004, para. 28). However, unless the public educational system itself is first transformed, there isn't much need for quality educational leadership training. As Archer notes, "principals can't change their schools if they're not allowed to, and many building leaders say they're not" (Archer, 2004, para. 44). Indicating the truth of this, a 2001 Public Agenda poll showed that only 30 percent of the nation's principals agreed that "the system helps you get things done." In contrast, 48 percent said they had to "work around" the system to accomplish their goals. The goals of progressive educational leaders who promote a democratic model of leadership continue to be countered by the more authoritarian aims of the government's policies; a conflict in educational leadership likely to last even into the next century.

Terms & Concepts

Authoritarian Education Model: An educational philosophy wherein students have little control or power over school curriculum or organization, and are largely seen as recipients of knowledge and instructions.

Charter Schools: Elementary or secondary schools that are publicly funded but are exempted from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in order to offer alternative education options which fulfill areas otherwise unaddressed by the public schools in the region.

Democratic Education Model: An educational philosophy that argues “for students to question, to be involved critically in their learning, to debate the social, economic and political context of education and to have control over their own learning through participation in educational decision-making structures” (Harber, 1997).

Educational Leadership: Achieving common educational goals through the effective management of teachers, students, and parents within a school system.

Education Voucher: Also called "school choice," a certificate with which parents can pay to educate their children at a neighboring school of their choice, sometimes in another district, rather than in the local public school.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): A United States federal statute enacted in 1965 to fund primary and secondary education. The act mandates that the funds are authorized for educators' professional development, instructional materials, and resources to support educational programs, and promote parental involvement. The act has been reauthorized every five years since its enactment.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): A United States federal educational reform law (a reauthorization of the ESEA) that emphasized mandatory standardized tests in public schools and a voucher system that allowed money for student education to be paid to private schools, including religious schools.

School Leadership: The process of carrying out educational policies by collaborating with teachers, pupils, and parents in a school district or building. This term replaced an older term, educational administration, in the United States.

Standardized testing: A testing procedure that tests knowledge of a content area in a way that designs test questions, the scoring procedures and interpretations of responses so that the answers are uniform and consistent. The method generally does not allow for multiple responses to be correct, and is most often represented by multiple choice or true-false testing so that results are computer scored.

Bibliography

Apple, M. W. (2007). Ideological success, educational failure? Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 108–116. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24235426&site=ehost-live

Archer, J. (2004) Tackling an impossible job. Education Week, 24, S1–S7 eLibrary. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14650721&site=ehost-live

Ball, S. J. (2011). A new research agenda for educational leadership and policy. Management in Education, 25, 50–52. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60442299

Birnbaum, M., & Weddington, T. (2012). Media review: American higher education, leadership, and policy: Critical issues and the public good. Journal of Student Affairs Research & Practice, 49, 237–239. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90367243

Capellaro, C. (2004). Brown, Latinos and equality. Rethinking Schools, 18. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18%5F03/equa183.shtml

Chitpin, S. (2014). Principals and the professional learning community: Learning to mobilize knowledge. International Journal of Educational Management, 28, 215–229. Retrieved December 2, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=94621883

Davies, P. M., Popescu, A., & Gunter, H. M. (2011). Critical approaches to education policy and leadership. Management in Education, 25, 47–49. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60442304

Diem, S., & Young, M. D. (2015). Considering critical turns in research on educational leadership and policy. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(7), 838–850. Retrieved January 8, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=109029976&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Farrell, C. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2016). Metrics matter. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 423–462. Retrieved December 7, 2016 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116314094&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Harber, C. (1997). International developments and the rise of education for democracy. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 27 179–191. Retrieved February 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9710231551&site=ehost-live

Hatcher, R. (2014). Local authorities and the school system: The new authority-wide partnerships. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42, 355–371. Retrieved December 2, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=96010115

Hoff, D. (2005). Movement afoot to reframe finance-adequacy suits. Education Week, 25, 25–34. Retrieved February 19, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18860786&site=ehost-live

Jackson, K. (2012). Influence matters: The link between principal and teacher influence over school policy and teacher turnover. Journal of School Leadership, 22, 875–901. Retrieved December 2, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Education Abstracts (H.W. Wilson). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=83458565

Kirp, D. (2004). The administrator interview: David Kirp. Administrator, 23, 1–7. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12440025&site=ehost-live

Kodrzycki, Y. K. (2002, October). Education in the 21st century: Meeting the challenges of a changing world. New England Economic Review, 3–19. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9400948&site=ehost-live

Nixon, Richard M. (1970, March 3). Special message to the Congress on education reform. American Presidency Project. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=2895

Passow, A. H. (1975, Dec.). Once again: Reforming public education. Teachers College Record, 77, 161–187. Retrieved February 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12993130&site=ehost-live

Tirozzi, G. (2001, Feb.). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary school principal. Phi Delta Kappa, 82 434–439. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4047316&site=ehost-live

Weaver, R. (2007). Maintaining our edge. NEA Today, 25, 7. Retrieved February 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23623379&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bottery, M. (2016). Educational leadership for a more sustainable world. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

Foley, R. (2001). Professional development needs of secondary school principals of collaborative-based service delivery models. High School Journal, 85, 10–22. Retrieved February 19, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5409232&site=ehost-live

Kipling, K., & Ferren, A. (2000) Closing the gaps: A leadership challenge. Liberal Education, 86, 28–36. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3610440&site=ehost-live

Lewis, A. (2005). Washington scene. Education Digest, 70, 68–71. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16782742&site=ehost-live

Post, M. (2013). Education leadership and policy. Reading Today, 31, 4. Retrieved October 8, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=91680185

Starnes, B. A. (2006). Even when repeated, lies about public education are STILL lies. Education Digest, 72,13–17. Retrieved February 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23254005&site=ehost-live

Starr, K. (2015). Education game changers: Leadership and the consequence of policy paradox. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tienken, C. (2012). Neoliberalism, social darwinism, and consumerism masquerading as school reform. Interchange, 43, 295–316. Retrieved December 11, 2013 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87405670