The unfortunate reality of modern day schools can be found in their leadership approach. A number of schools have placed great emphasis on campus leadership. This leadership can be found among both faculty and students. Two local Houston private schools that have made leadership a focus are that of Houston Christian and the Second Baptist School. Houston Christian’s faculty collectively read the book Good to Great; in reading this work, faculty members broke up into small groups to discuss and analyze the models presented about leadership and what it is. The process of leadership, in my unqualified opinion, is one that shapes the dynamics of a culture; it is here in which the sociological complexities of group formations can be tricky.
Individuals define and see leadership and the shaping of it very differently. As it relates to schools and the role of faculty members, leadership and how we as faculty value leadership is most important. Independent schools should set the model for leadership for all schools; we have the freedom to be different and work outside of state structures that interrupt the make up of a community. Campus leadership is about empowering faculty members not only with access to facilities to conduct academic work as professionals, but granting them a voice of governance. A topic I have blogged a great deal about is that of faculty tenure. Although this is important to me and those in my academic circle, I have found that schools with a structural sense of organization to be the best models of campus leadership. Last spring, I received a copy of After the Harkness Gift, a book that addresses the academic and intellectual culture of school life at the Phillips Exeter School – one of the nation’s most elite schools. Their model for campus leadership is one that should be emulated by all independent schools.
For example, in chapter 2 entitled Governing a Faculty-Run School, the authors addressed a few key topics as it relates to school leadership and organization:
“One of the most distinctive features of the Academy, indeed, is the faculty government. Like the school itself, its government is completely democratic. Often divergent views are expressed, on occasion recommendations by committees or administrative officers are reversed, and all action is decided by vote of the Faculty. It is perhaps needless to add that these decisions are wholly free from political or religious bias and influence” (pg. 34)
“…. In any event, this action marked the true beginning of Exeter as a “faculty-run” school, because it meant that the faculty not only directed academic and student life, but also controlled membership in the community, from admissions through graduation” (pg. 36)
One of the models I have found to work best among the many independent schools I have visited or in some way associated with is the empowering of departments to work autonomously. According to an anecdote in the book that describes the power of department chairs:
“…Some years ago at the beginning of the fall term, during a meeting of an academic department, the new professors were told – and old members reminded – that matters of policy were democratically settled by majority vote. The members were also told that decisions on the subject under discussion could not be made “because the ‘majority’ has not yet arrived. ” The majority, in this case was the chairman of the department” (pg. 37).
I like this model of leadership in that faculty members model a sense of empowerment.