Annual meeting of AERA

Citation

Ross Thomas, A. (2006), "Annual meeting of AERA", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2006.07444faa.001

Annual meeting of AERA

Sponsored by Emerald Publishing, your Editor attended the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco on April 7-11 this year. The meeting, the 87th since the foundation of AERA in 1916, was extraordinarily well supported by American and foreign educationists. By the end of the conference more then 15,500 participants had registered – a record for this annual gathering – and participated in approximately 2,400 sessions provided by in excess of 4,000 presenters.

The annual meeting of AERA caters for all fields of educational research and these are broadly apportioned among 12 divisions. The concerns and interests of this journal are addressed mainly in divisions A and L – administration, organization and leadership, and educational policy and politics, respectively. But superimposed across these broad-sweeping categories are many special interest groups (SIGs) whose members report on research in more closely-defined areas. Just a cursory glance at the list of SIGs reveals many that may be the source of material appropriate for this journal. Some examples of such are chaos and complexity theories, conflict resolution and violence prevention, critical educators for social justice (each of which has provided basis for special, thematic issues of the journal in recent times), educational change, politics and education, research on women in education, school effectiveness and school improvement, systems thinking in education, and teaching in educational administration. Accordingly, as one eagerly seeking outstanding research papers to publish in this journal, I faced the insurmountable challenge of attending hundreds of presentations that could have had relevance for the journal’s readership.

Selection of presentations to attend thus becomes of paramount importance for any participant in the AERA meeting. Inevitably this brings with it some disappointments when, for example, a paper does not live up to the promise of its abstract or the reputation of its presenter. But, equally so, pleasant surprises and exciting ideas are to be had.

It is not my intention to refer to the several papers I attended that fitted these categories; suffice it to say that I invited several presenters to submit their papers to the journal for consideration. There are some papers currently under review as a result of my invitations.

One major presentation that should be acknowledged herein, however, was the interim report of the Joint Research Taskforce on Educational Leadership Preparation. The presentation was jointly sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), division A, the Teaching in Educational Administration SIG, and the National Council for Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA). It is expected that the taskforce will complete its work within three to five years – a period that is not surprising when one considers the ambit of the taskforce’s responsibility. The primary aims of this important undertaking are:

• •

  to provide a foundation about existing research and theory in the field of leadership preparation;

• •

  to identify gaps and new directions for research on leadership preparation;

• •

  to stimulate more and better research in the field of leadership preparation;

• •

  to encourage new and experienced researchers to undertake research in the field; and

• •

  to provide a community of scholars for on-going conceptual and methodological work.

Currently these objectives are being addressed via the endeavours of teams considering ten domains of activity. Among the domains (and providing evidence of the comprehensiveness of the investigation) are leadership education as a field of study, models and theories of leadership education, providers of leadership education, curriculum and pedagogy in leadership education, professional learning, and leadership education around the globe. Reports from each of the domains were presented with, in most cases, listings of the personnel involved. These give good cause to anticipate confidently a productive outcome from the taskforce’s deliberations.

My access to the meeting’s press room enabled me to acquire another taskforce’s interim report – the AERA Draft Standards for Reporting on Research Methods. Finalisation of this report, expected soon after the AERA meeting, will provide all researchers with a most valuable and comprehensive blueprint for educational investigation.

And it is most appropriate at this juncture to thank Helaine Patterson and Lucy Cunningham (from AERA headquarters in Washington DC) who extended all assistance and courtesy to the Journal of Educational Administration and its editor in the press room.

Editorial Advisory Board

As indicated previously, the annual meeting of AERA provides the opportunity and the venue for scholars from around the world to gather. It is customary for several members of the editorial advisory board to participate in the AERA conference. Accordingly, I convened a meeting of the board on April 10. Present were Wayne Hoy, Patrick Forsyth, Olof Johansson, Joe Licata, Zehava Rosenblatt, and Tony Normore.

I was able, inter alia, to report the following statistics to the board regarding submission and publication of papers for Volume 43 (2005) of the journal:

1. 1.

   Acceptance rates (%):

2. 2.
   • •

     Accepted – 4.

   • •

     Accepted after revision – 26.

   • •

     Rejected (but with invitation to rewrite and resubmit) – 10.

   • •

     Rejected – 60.

3. 3.

   Turnaround time. Average turnaround time (date of receipt of paper to notice of decision) throughout 2005 was eight weeks.

4. 4.

   Time to publication. Average queue time for all articles published in 2005 (date of receipt of paper to publication) was 12 months but 40 per cent of papers (especially those published without significant amendment) were published within 9-11 months.

This issue

Contributors to this, the final Issue for 2006, are from Canada, the US, Hong Kong and Israel.

Our first article is reproduced per courtesy of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Each year at the council’s annual conference a distinguished participant is invited to present the W.G. Walker Oration. The oration is given in memory of the late Emeritus Professor William (Bill) Walker whose efforts were largely responsible for the introduction of the study of educational administration in Australia. Professor Walker was also the founding editor of the Journal of Educational Administration, now completing its 44th volume with this current issue and the oldest of the international journals serving the development of educational administration and leadership. Professor Keith Walker (who is unrelated to the late Professor Bill Walker) of the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, brings a new and invigorating approach to the concept of educational leadership. Walker calls upon educational leaders to consider the forces that hinder hope-giving and to inspire hope among their constituents. Hope is an essential component of leadership that may be used to transform and enhance the experiences of learning communities.

In our second article Paul Begley from The Pennsylvania State University addresses the issue of authentic leadership by school principals. Essential to leadership of this kind are three prerequisites – self-knowledge, the capacity for moral reasoning, and sensitivity to the orientations of others. Research on the valuation processes of principals and their responses to ethical dilemmas provides a conceptual framework for describing authentic leadership and the acquisition of moral literacy by school leaders. Four motivational bases for decision-making are described – self-interest/personal preferences, rational consensus, rational consequences, and trans-rational ethics/principles. One most important implication is that principals need the capacity to discriminate actual intentions both within themselves and among others.

Our next article by Esther Ho from The Chinese University of Hong Kong considers the nature of decentralization that has emerged in three important Asian societies – Hong Kong, Japan and Korea. Each country has been engaged in the decentralization movement for at least ten years and yet some noteworthy differences in outcomes have been detected. Data for the study were obtained from the first cycle of the Program for International Student Assessment (OECD/PISA). Although analysis of such reveals the presence of four models of decentralization – highly centralized; school-driven; teacher-driven; and highly decentralized – two are particularly relevant to the three systems studied. In Hong Kong the school-driven model was dominant (indicating the school itself is largely responsible for making school-related decisions) while in Japan and Korea the centralized model was dominant (indicating that authorities outside the school are largely responsible for decisions relating to schools).

Iizhar Oplatka of Ben Gurion University in Israel next considers the status of female leadership in educational systems in a sample of developing countries. Material for his study has been obtained largely from analysis of contemporary research on women in educational administration as reported in papers published in journals of educational administration, gender studies in education, and comparative education. The review reveals particular barriers to women’s career advancement peculiar to developing countries (e.g. strong family obligations, low levels of education for girls, a majority of men in teaching positions), unique career experiences (e.g. the important role of the father), and to the adoption of “androgynous” leadership styles by the few women administrators in these countries.

In the final article Curt Adams (San Miguel School, Tulsa OK) and Patrick Forsyth (Oklahoma State University) examine the influence of three contextual variables – socio-economic status, school level, school structure – on teachers’ perceptions of collective efficacy – a concept long overdue for concentrated research and analysis. Collective efficacy at the organizational level reflects a teaching faculty’s belief in its collective ability to carry out teaching tasks that promote student achievement. Results of this study support the premise that these contextual variables do add power to explanations of collective teacher efficacy. School structure in particular accounts for the variability in perceptions of efficacy.

Two book reviews complete this issue.

A. Ross Thomas