Educational leadership--United States

The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics and practices, related
values, and the processing of stakeholders ' voices in two educational programs for older
adults that are perceived as effective by their stakeholders. This purpose was motivated
by the researcher's desire to provide useful information to program leaders and
institutional leaders in the field of older adult education. The information is presented for
leaders who are building new educational events and integrating them into their
organizations. The research was conducted at two sites at Florida Atlantic University: the
Lifelong Learning Society at the Jupiter campus and the Memory and Wellness Center at
the Boca Raton campus. The voices in this text belong to practitioners, theoreticians, and
attendees- all learners as well as contributors. The researcher's face-to-face interviews,
group discussions, and observations disclosed four meta themes: (a) envisioning, creating, and establishing the learning environment; (b) program characteristics, (c)
fostering persistent participation, and (d) leaders' roles and responsibilities. These themes
encompassed both sites while illustrating inherently unique aspects of each program. The
setting at each site was comprised of three distinct aspects -physical, affective, and
activity- and each uniquely contributed to program success. Although each setting and
program had its own reasons and methods for stimulating cognitive functioning, they
shared the assumption that wellness and learning are related. Leaders of both programs
displayed four foundational qualities: respect, kindness, encouragement, and flexibility.
Each of these characteristics fostered strong positive relationships with attendees and
partnerships that promote learning among colleagues. These examples of successful
leadership suggested several guidelines for front line practitioners. Among these were
building expertise in market awareness, fund raising, a wide communication repertoire,
and the critical ability of establishing a cadre of program supporters within and beyond
the organization. Recommendations for higher-level leaders included attending to core
institutional values, community connections, open communication, inclusion of new team
members, and the value of listening to everyone's ideas. Factors that advanced the
establishment of educational programs for older adults include their growing numbers,
assertive voices, and value to host institutions. This study raises the question: in what
ways do these formal, communal learning events contribute to follow-up independent
learning?

The conceptual framework of this study suggested that Socio-Cultural Leadership
was composed of the following four factors: Instructional Domain, Emotional Domain,
Community Domain, and Cultural Domain. Furthermore, it was posed that these factors,
collectively and independently, directly impacted student achievement in schools ofhigh
poverty. From this framework, the Socio-Cultural Leadership Questionnaire was
developed (SCLQ). The research questions that guided this study were:
1. Do the items of the survey instrument divide into the four domains as
described?
2. What is the relationship, collectively and independently, between SocioCultural
Leadership and student achievement in high-poverty schools?
3. Is the frequency in observed principal behaviors different between lowperforming
and high-performing schools? Therefore, the purpose of this study was to, via exploratory factor analysis; verify
that these four factors existed as described and to, via regression analysis, find the direct
relationship between the resulting factors and student achievement in high poverty
schools. High poverty schools were defined as schools where 50 percent ( 40 percent for
high schools) or more of the student population participated the federally funded Free
and/or Reduced Price Lunch Program. This study also sought to differentiate these
findings according to the performance levels of the schools sampled.
The pilot study, the descriptive statistics, the principal components analysis, and
the measures of internal consistency, all provided the researcher with empirical evidence
to establish the reliability and validity of specific SCLQ items along with the significance
of the resulting factors. Two of the five SCLQ subscales that resulted from the factor
analysis, OP (outreach to parents) and MIPD (management of instructional process
detractors), positively correlated with student achievement in the total sample (n = 903).
There is a less than 5 percent chance that these findings were due to a Type I sampling
error. Finally, principals in high-performing schools exhibited behaviors indicated by
subscales OP (outreach to parents) and MIPD (management of instructional process
detractors) significantly more than principals in low-performing schools.

The changing roles and responsibilities of the Associate in Science Degree department chair (ASDDC), influencers of change, and need for training were examined at two Florida community colleges using a modified Delphi research methodology in three rounds. One hundred-twenty-three roles and responsibilities of the Associate in Science Degree department chair identified in Round One interviews of 20 Workforce Associate in Science Degree department chairs were utilized to construct a questionnaire implemented in Round Two and Round Three of the Delphi study. The ASDDCs interviewed in Round One, serving as the expert panel in Two and Three, were asked, "How are the listed roles and responsibilities changing?" Sixty-seven, or 63.21 percent of the identified list of roles and responsibilities of the ASDDC reached consensus of change. Fifteen, or 14.50 percent of the roles and responsibilities were identified as "changing rapidly" or "change is tremendous." Nine categories of responsibilities emerged from the identified 123 roles and responsibilities of the ASDDC. Ranked highest to lowest in consensus of change were: Technology, programs, community college, students, professions, hiring/supervising, leadership, clerical and last, training. Statistical significance was found between the subgroups of "high tech" ASDDCs and "high touch" ASDDCs in three categories: program, community college, and hiring/supervising. Themes emerging from the study indicated the Associate in Science Degree department chairs are fulfilling Gmelch and Miskin's earlier identified department chair roles of manager, leader, and scholar with the faculty developer role just emerging; the future holds time-consuming clerical work; the chairs are proud of their technology and physical working space; community colleges are changing; Associate in Science Degree department chairs see themselves as leaders in their professions by teaching and developing curriculum, and ambiguity and lack of clarity exits in the roles and responsibilities of the Associate in Science Degree department chair which echoes Dymmel's earlier findings in North Carolina community colleges. Recommendations resulting from the study include: Restructuring the position of Associate in Science Degree department chair, examining the ambiguity of the position, and creating partnerships to provide training for the position.