​​ Part 1: These are the facts I believe to be the most relevant to the case. I have arranged the facts in chronological order.

​​​         The staff of Garden Side Elementary were notified that for the first two years of testing, Lakewood students had performed below standard on every achievement test at the tested grade levels. Ms Foster was hired as Principal of the school; she was mainly hired for her reputation for increasing class scores in underachieving schools. Hannah was hired by the new principal as a math specialist to assist teachers in the classroom, model lessons, and promote more innovative teaching practices. Principal Foster collaborated with Hannah to form a specific plan. The first phase of the plan was that during the Fall semester, Hannah would organize school-wide activates and games to alter teacher’s negative perception of math. They wanted to create a positive math culture. Furthermore, this fun approach was meant to facilitate the shift to the second phase of the plan which was to focus more directly on improving teachers’ math instruction. At the end of each month the principal and Hannah met to discuss how Hannah’s work was proceeding.

          The day before students returned to school; Principal Foster introduced Hannah to the teachers and staff. She explained that Hannah was hired to provide supplemental math services and emphasized “I hope everyone will take full advantage of this great resource we have.” October, Principal Foster gives Hannah positive feedback regarding the progress of the math initiative. December, Principal Foster felt ready to move to next phase of the plan. She was certain the teachers were ready to have reflective conversations about their math teaching practice and how to improve math instruction. Starting January, Principal Foster planned to have the teacher meet weekly in grade-level teams during their common planning period, and Hannah would facilitate the meetings. During these meetings teachers would be encouraged to think critically about their math instruction and how it might be improved. Attendance for these grade-level meetings turned out lower than expected.

          Soon after, Hannah overheard Connie two fourth-grade teachers, speaking negatively about the meeting some of the comments over heard were “I really don’t see the point, “we already know which students are struggling.”

Soon upon hearing these remarks, Hannah decided to change the plan a little. Without consulting with Principal Foster, She decided to focus on one-on-one modeling with kindergarten and first-grade teachers because she believed they would be more open to work with her as they were not under the same testing pressures as the other teachers.

          In February, Principal Foster told Hannah, the upper elementary teachers did not see the need for a Math Specialist. She also stated, “I know that some of their resistance is fear and nothing against you personally. Yet she also commented that she however was concerned that Hannah was not working to build a relationship with all the teachers. ​

       

Part 2: I believe Principal Foster and Hannah are placed in the position of leadership, which is not the same as being leaders. The first can be a job title or role, while being a leader can mean having the ability to induce a group to pursue objectives held by the leader (Pielstick). I think there are two leadership problems in this case; leadership structure and execution of leadership skills.

          Regarding leadership structure, I think the most serious issue is that Hannah’s role was not well defined. Principal Foster introduces Hannah to the teachers as a resource which somewhat implies teachers have the option to use her services. However Principal Foster collaborates with Hannah and gives her a leadership position to change and improve the school’s math culture and teaching methods.  During the first phase of the plan Hannah's role matched what the teachers were told but during the transition to the next phase. Hannah took a role where she asked and instructed teachers to attend meetings she was facilitating. She seemed to have gotten used to performing autonomous “positional leadership” actions one of which was choosing not to focus on upper grade level teachers who were the ones that actually needed the most help.

          The problem of proper execution of leadership seems to me complex because Principal Foster is supposedly an expert in changing around schools testing scores. However, in this case she demonstrates many decisions that at this stage are seen to be missteps. One example is that she did not prepare Hannah for the strong resistance the teachers had. The plans basic purpose was to transform teacher’s view of math and their teaching this could have involved Mezirow’s transformative learning? By which individual teachers change their long held “negative” view (meaning perspective) about math through discussion and reflections, which often involves disequilibrium and strong resistance (Chapman and Randell, 2007, p. 63-65). It seems Principal Foster knew there would be resistance when she told Hannah during the last meeting ““I know that some of their resistance is fear and nothing against you personally”    

          I think Principal Fosters biggest failure in executing true leadership skills was when she did not set a shared (socialized) vision or goals concerning the math initiatives. Setting a vision may have been a source of motivation (Komives et al, 2006 p. 82). It is explained that it is not the vision but what the vision does which the key. School staff (except for Hannah) were unaware what the goals or plans were. Basically, Principle Foster did not choose to give the teachers the collaborative power (let alone the information) they may have needed to change. She instead gave the power and position to Hannah, who was not able to spread the vision with the teachers. Thus demonstrating she was not a leader.

​

​Part 3: The case ends in February during a meeting between Principal Foster and Hannah, So there are several months left in the school year. At the current stage, there is no socialized vision, no common purpose, and most of the shareholders don’t know what their roles are.                                                         

          There are many possible events that may happen, but two dichotomous ones would involve a slow approach and the other a quick approach. The slow approach could involve having an open honest discussion, which involves admitting faults to the faculty and listening to new ideas, which may alter the plan or even scrap the plan. Setting up a new leadership structure would most likely be part of this approach. I would think this approach would take most of the school year and beyond, The other option would be to quickly transition into phase two of the plan with the inclusion of the teachers in the discussions and making them aware of the prior and future goals telling them what roles they will play from now on. 

I envision the last option happening for several reasons, which include,

1) Principal Foster seems to believe the plan is proper and achievable, and the setback is part of change. She may believe as Kanter doeas that “everything in the middle seems like a failure.”

2) Hannah has been reflective of the process and realizes that the teachers did not understand their role in improving student achievement.

3) Once the teachers understand what the point of Principal foster’s and Hannah’s efforts were at the beginning of the school year; they may come to the conclusion that the whole process has not been failed effort. Thus helping to build the social vision of can still be done.

4) If Hannah shares her intentions to discuss and teach benchmarks and assessments, the use of rubrics, constructivist strategies, the use of math centers, and math journal writing. I believe the teachers would want to start these meetings as soon as possible. Also a big barrier will be taking down since testing was a high-priority issue which was being ignored and causing high opposition from the upper-level teachers (Komives et al, 2006 p. 90).