A Study of Democratic

Purposes and Processes

in School Leadership
Teams
Lynn Doyle
Old Dominion University
Carl E. Hanssen
Hanssen Consulting
DeAnn Huinker
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Abstract
The literature in educational leadership widely
supports democratic leadership. Through
observations and interviews, this qualitative study
explored how school leadership teams implement
both democratic processes and purposes.
Findings suggest ways that school principals and
leadership teams can increase shared decision
making and focus on equity issues.
Purpose of this study: to explore ways in which
school principals and leadership team members
understand and implement the intertwined
processes and purposes of democratic leadership.

Background

The literature in educational leadership

stresses decision making as a shared process.
Theories and models for organizing schools
now include shared decision making in some
way.
Participatory decision-making dramatically
alters the leadership of schools.
Critical elements of schools as democratic
communities

Visionto teach students how to contribute to a

democratic society, and
Democratic use of power within the school (In
other words, to teach democratic principles,
schools must also use them, i.e., shared decision
making.)

Theoretical
Framework
Shared decision making as democratic
process cannot be separated from the intent
(purpose) of decisions. If purpose is
omitted, then certain groups could vote for
the inequitable treatment of other groups
and all in the name of democracy (Quantz,
Cambron-McCabe, & Dantley, 1991).
Decisions must be more than shared; they
must be committed to issues of social equity
(OHair, McLaughlin & Reitzug, 2000).

Methods

Qualitative study using text narratives from

observations of team meetings and
interviews with team members of teams;
extensive field notes transcribed
immediately following observations and
interviews
Open-ended interview protocol questions
focused on team functioning and power
Analysis of the text data was through
thematic unitizing (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000; Ryan & Bernard, 2000)categories
emerged throughout analysis and
interpretation of the data (Constas, 1992).

Data Sources

22 team meetings in 11 schools in a large,

diverse urban school district
Interviews with at least one team member prior
to or immediately following LT observations
Leadership teams (LT) mandated by central
administration. LT focusimproving teaching
and learning. Membership varied and included
principals, key administrators, the literacy
coaches, Math Teacher Leaders (MTL), and
classroom teachers representing each grade
level.
Teams conduct meetingstypically
immediately after school weekly or biweekly.
Team members were not paid.

Results/Discussion

While district-wide organizational design of LTs

was conducive to democratic leadership, it did
not always function that way. Levels of
functioning emerged according to five categories.

1. Knowledge Bases

Overall, LT members had good understanding

of the needs of their schools and the kind of
teaching that leads to improved instructional
outcomes. However, what many, including
principals, did not appear to know or
understand were ways to implement
democratic process and purpose.

Results/Discussion (cont.)
2.

Varied Use of Power

Teams were centrally mandated; however,

principals decided level of their own participation.
In six of the schools, principals were in
charge. They ran the meetings, made most
decisions and/or called for a vote.
In three schools, teachers ran the meetings, and
the principals acted as nearly equal
participant. Principals participation was
more as informant.
In two schools, the principals acted as advisor
on call. They did not attend LT meetings but
stopped in, checked needs, and after providing
needed resources, left the teachers to make
decisions.

Results/Discussion (cont.)
3. Structure of Meetings Varied
Formal voting to consensus
Rigid to semi-structured chats/rap sessions
Off task with uncompleted agendas to
efficient
DecisionsBroad topics to focused on
instruction
Time spentare/are not related to
importance of issue
Meetings of principals as advisors on call

Structure often loose and chaotic, but well focused

In one case, the field notes indicated, The structure for leadership was loose, and
it was sometimes difficult to ascertain who was leading the meeting. Everyone
talked out of turn. However, of all meetings observed, these teachers were most
collaborative, focused, hard working, and productive.made considerable progress
on creating a school improvement plan in the same amount of time that several of
the other teams took to simply decide on a schedule for when to work on their
plans.

Results/Discussion (cont.)
4. Parameters for Decision making

Topics before the teams were often broad and

in some cases, more appropriate for School
Governance Councils. We do everything in
this school, from soup to nuts.
In schools with principals as advisor on call,
the focus was narrow. Consistent with district
policy, LTs were to focus specifically on
teaching issues.

5. Factors of Control

Each school LT had a different tenor/climate

that appeared associated with the role,
approach, and style of the principal. Meetings
in which principals were in charge were
most formal and controlled but surprisingly,
not necessarily productive.

Missing Element: Democratic

Purpose
In a study of administrative beliefs, Doyle (2002) found
that administrators did not understand democratic
leadership as a complex interweaving of process and
product.
Results of this study reveal that while the district
imposed organizational structures (process) that had
the potential for democracy, administrators did not
implement these organizational mandates in a way that
exemplified democratic leadership. Examples of shared
decision making were limited and throughout all of the
observations, there were only a few examples in which
LT members talked specifically about equity issues
(purpose). They did not describe curricula centered on
social action nor mention challenges to the status quo.
This void makes one question if or how LT members,
and in particular, principals and teachers have been
exposed to theories of democratic leadership.

References
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic schools.
schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Constas, M. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category
development procedures. American Educational Research Journal 29(2), 253-266.
Crow, G. M. (2006, Winter). Uni. Council of Educational Administration presidential
address: Democracy and educational work in an age of complexity. UCEA Review,
48(1),
48(1), 1-5.
Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. (2005). Educational administration: A problem-based
approach.
approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, (2nd edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Doyle, L. H. (2002). Leadership and inclusion: Reculturing for reform. International
Journal of Educational Reform, 11(1),
11(1), 38-62.
Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America's schools.
schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J. (2002). Re-culturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2),
38(2), 176-191.
Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools:
The struggle for civic virtue in education reform. Phi Delta Kappan 81(8), pp. 568575.
Ogawa, R. T., & Bossert, S. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224-243.
OHair, M. J., McLaughlin, H. J., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Foundations of democratic
education.
education. New York: Harcourt Publishers.
Purpel, D. E. (1988). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice
and compassion in education. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Quantz, R., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Dantley, M. (1991). Preparing school administrators
for democratic authority: A critical approach to graduate education. The Urban
Review 23(1), 3-19.
Robertson, P. J., Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S. A. (1995). Generating curriculum and
instructional innovations through school-based management. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 375-404.