دانلود کتاب راهنمای گفتمان رهبری و مدیریت آموزشی پالگریو

The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse is designed to add a new dimension to the discourse in the field. Most handbooks are topical presentations and/or discussions of contemporary issues or problems. There is usually no deep probing or revealing interrogations of the foundations and assumptions upon which the topical presentations are made. There is rarely any tracing of where the ideas, concepts, or metaphors in use in topical discourse originated. For a field such as educational leadership and management, which is an applied body of practice, not knowing where ideas, concepts, or metaphors of practice originated leads to unintended consequences in an application, erroneous interpretations of alleged success or failure, or a dismal repetition of undiagnosed errors. One outcome is the complete lack of reflexivity in leadership practice. Reflexivity is different than reflection. Reflection of practice refers to asking such questions as, “Did we reach our goals, and if not, why not?” or “How could my leadership practice be improved?” Reflexivity asks instead, “How am I thinking about how I am thinking about leadership?” For example, the word accountability is often applied to success or failure to produce specified learning outcomes. But the concept of accountability does not emanate from some theory of learning or theory of leadership that has anything to do with either teaching, learning, or leading. Rather, the root word account appears in about 1300 from the Middle English acounten or acunten which in turn was borrowed from Old French aconter or acunter which was derived from the Latin computare which means compute (Barnhart, 1995). When one is accountable for learning outcomes one is merely being responsible for counting or computing such results. It’s not a failure to do anything but count or measure something. But in contemporary leadership jargon a failure to be accountable means an abrogation of “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions” (Merriam-Webster, 2003, p. 8). Within this shifting meaning of 700 years of linguistic history lies the concept that being responsible or accountable is an indication that one is only responsible or accountable for measurement, that is, computation. That is the only action implicit in accountability. Yet placed within a context where the measurement involves student learning or achievement, there is an unwarranted assumption that being accountable means knowing how to do something different for attaining better results within a specific context of learning, teaching, or leading. From this view, principals and superintendents have been fired for only computational accuracy. Yet they were fully accountable when they were expelled from their responsibilities. This is a case of the absence of reflexivity which would ask, “How am I thinking about how I am thinking about accountability?”