CHAPTER TWO: Communicating my Valuing the Other in my Professional Practice

Understanding My Valuing of the other

The first part of this chapter presents two studies of singularity with Greg, a principal, and a teacher, Cheryl. The second part is a story of my family of schools' principals and vice-principals, a view of our learning together, my relationship with two principals, Kim and Greg, a parent and a teacher. These studies connect my value and standard of practice of valuing the other to my sustained support for a relational form of educational leadership that explores possibilities for democratic and non-hierarchical systems in the context of extending my educative influence.

In the narratives I demonstrate that my learning and relationships are created and sustained out of the dialogic processes that are natural and indeed crucial for my ontology. Through the recounting of the stories, their construction and deconstruction, the meanings of my embodied values are clarified in the course of their emergence in practice. This process of clarification transforms my experience of my embodied values into publicly communicable standards of judgement to which I hold myself to account in the sense of testing the validity of my claims to educational knowledge. Having said that, I will be showing you that I am frequently a "living contradiction" (Whitehead, 1989) as I find myself unable to live my life fully according to my values in the sense that I hold certain values and experience them being negated in my practice. My "true north principles" (Covey, 1989) have remained firm but my values have clarified and sometimes changed as a result of action and reflection during the period of my research.

While I believe strongly in the importance of narrative as a means to explicate my life, I do recognize the tension that I have felt at reading the narratives of the practitioner-researchers in the work of Connelly & Clandinin (1999) which I felt stopped at the point of story-telling. My stories have an educational intention, not merely to stand on their own as stories. They also have a role in the creation of community as I share them with others. "Some say that community is based on blood ties, sometimes dictated by choice, sometimes by necessity. And while this is true, the immeasurably stronger gravitational field that holds a group together is their stories...the common and simple one they share with one another." (Estes, 1993, p. 29 in Bolman & Deal, 2001). I will be clarifying my standard of the valuing the other in professional practice in the narratives in this chapter.

In the descriptions and explanations of the significant relationships in my life as a professional educator you will see that I am consistently exhibiting expectations for myself and others that are not limited or restricted by bare data or purely factual information. This may appear at times to be bordering on the fantastical or fictional. You will see that the hope that I carry, the optimism that I exhibit, the faith that I hold in the capacities and potential for people to reach my seemingly unrealistic expectations to improve student learning are well-founded. Marion Kline's (teacher and program consultant) message seems to capture that intent: "You are a little like a lighthouse for me. You keep me focused on where I am going. You have always supported me but at the same time let me find my direction on my own" (e-mail, May 29, 2001). 1 As I communicate that valuing the other, the I-You relationship is extremely important in accomplishing what I-We do in that "he will be guided by the recognition of values which is in his glance as an educator" (Buber, 1947, p. 122).

People like Marion Kline articulate that they are buoyed by this motivation and frequently tell me that my faith in them gives them faith in themselves. The evidence for that is located in e-mails and writing from many people including principals, teachers, masters group projects and in the success of many like Marion and Cheryl Black and Greg Buckles and Kim Cottingham. 2 Furthermore, when the vision I create of a better world, of improved learning, of improved social order (McNiff, 1992) is not fulfilled, I do not deem it a failure, just limited progress on the path to the preferred future. I never lose sight of my purpose to enable others to improve education and learning through seeing their potential, their value to create a better world. There is no 'Ten Ways to Improve Education.' There is only working at it, getting it wrong, and maybe eventually, who knows how or why, getting it right. Even in the midst of restructuring and amalgamation, I pushed and struggled to keep that faith, the vision of continuous improvement -- and except for a few months of lost momentum -- managed to maintain it, even if at a slower pace.

In order to comprehend my meaning of valuing the other in professional practice, it may be necessary to examine the contrary, to juxtapose some of the ugly years of my life and my learning and values clarification from them. My deep understanding of my need at all costs to protect the personal relationship derives from my life's experiences with my ex-husband in which I have felt that I was not valued: twenty-three years of living with and dealing with controlling behaviours and aggression. Over that time, 1970-1992, I learned coping mechanisms to deal with them and clarified my commitment to believing in the capacity of valuing and caring for the other (Noddings, 1984, Gilligan, 1982). I feel, and my children confirm (Foerter, 1999), that unconditional love permeates my relationships with them. My values which are my standards of practice emerge out of life's experiences and my theorizing about them comes from the practical experiences.

As I add my voice and those of my colleagues to the knowledge base of teaching and learning, I write in response to Coulter (1999), that "..indeed there is a curious absence of voice: administrators and teachers do not fail students, they implement policies according to objective criteria; researchers present impartial data in third person narratives" (p. 7). I concur that we do need to hear the voices of teachers and administrators but neither they nor researchers are completely impartial. The criteria that I use and those around me use are frequently very personal and not all objective. Coulter (1999) recommends Bakhtin's ideas on dialogism, of Chronotope, Polyphony and Carnival (Bakhtin, 1981) as ways to include more voices, a better understanding of context and time in the research and to find 'truth'. "Truth, for Bakhtin, emerges from a genuine communication between people; it is not imposed by one partner on the other. Truth is "born between people collectively searching for truth" (Bakhtin, 1963/1984a, p.110 in Coulter, 1999, p. 7). My 'truth' will emerge in the narratives of genuine communication between people.

In the following studies I will be highlighting the emerging clarification of my standard of my valuing the other in my professional practice in two studies of singularity (Bassey, 1995) and in descriptions and explanations of my families of schools through the use of comic font.

A) Two Studies of Singularity

A case study or study of singularity approach

I present these two case studies as a means to explain the depth of the relationships that are central to my values in my life and work. The "studies of singularity" (Bassey, 1995) provide evidence of a kind of relational leadership. Also I believe I am responding to Regan and Brooks (1995) 3 when they encourage the examination of leadership through this lens of relational leadership (p. 93). I have chosen my relationship with these two people for in-depth investigation because of the reciprocal nature of our learning and because of the depth of the relationship with people at different 'levels' in the hierarchy of position and power and to examine and analyze how I influence people. I wish to emphasize that while the case study of Greg mostly precedes that of Cheryl, they are not intended to be sequential. These case studies were selected to show my embodied values, not to develop the sequential notion of learning. The respect and care that I feel for Greg Buckles and Cheryl Black and that we share for each other may generate questions around preconceived notions of power relations and open thinking on the possibilities for democratic and non-hierarchical systems that "interact positively to advance the organization's purposes":

Politics is as much part of schooling as learning. Power is everywhere in education (Ball, 1987). Teachers exercise power over their pupils, senior managers exercise power over their teachers, and the smarter teachers know how to manipulate or manoeuvre around senior managers. Politics is about acquiring and using power and influence. At their worst, micro-political environments make a school dysfunctional and prevent positive change (Sarason, 1990). At their best they interact positively to advance the organization's purposes (Stoll & Fink in Stoll & Myers, 1998, p. 201).

On the subject of case study, even though "there seems to be little agreement about what case study is" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 360 in Bassey, 1999), I am in agreement with Michael Bassey (1999) as he sets out "to reconstruct the concept of educational case study as a prime strategy for developing educational theory which illuminates educational policy and enhances educational practice. I set out to do this by identifying and focusing on a particular form of educational case study, which I feel is 'theory-seeking and theory-testing case study'" (p.3). These case studies and others in the thesis are "studies of singularities" as opposed to "studies of samples" and are "interpretations of what has happened", not "predictions of what may happen in particular circumstances" (Bassey, 1999, p. 3-4). I do not, however, concur with his assumption that studies of singularities (which embrace action research) may lead to "fuzzy generalizations" (p. 4). From these studies I draw personal knowledge and theorize about the nature of the educative relationships that I have with various people. The originality of the contribution of this thesis to the academic and professional knowledge-base of education is in the systematic way I transform my embodied educational values into educational standards of practice and judgement in the creation of my living educational theory.

On this subject of case study activity, Michael Bassey (1999) cites Stephen Kemmis (1980):

We must find a perspective on case study work which preserves indeterminacy, which countenances both the objects and methods of case study work, and which reminds us of the dialectical processes of its construction. If someone asked, 'what is the nature of case study as an activity?' then a proper response would be, 'Case study consists in the imagination of the case and the invention of the study' (p. 119) (p. 24).

As well, Bassey (1999) referenced Stake (1995) who described the intrinsic case study as "research into a particular situation for its own sake and irrespective of outside concerns":

"The case is given. We are interested in it, not because studying it we learn about other cases or about some general problem, but because we need to learn about the particular case." He also warned of the danger of overstating findings: "Good case study is patient, reflective, willing to see another view of the case. An ethic of caution is not contradictory to an ethic of interpretation" (p. 3) (p. 12).

Stake (1995) introduced the term "naturalistic generalization" which meant "conclusions arrived at through personal engagement in life's affairs" (p. 86) and as well made the case for the value of including personal details and vicarious experiences:

To assist the reader in making naturalistic generalizations, case researchers need to provide opportunity for vicarious experiences. Our accounts need to be personal, describing the things of our sensory experiences, not failing to attend to the matters that personal curiosity dictates. A narrative account, a story, a chronological presentation, personalistic description, emphasis on time and place provide rich ingredients for vicarious experience (p. 87)(Bassey, 1999, p.33).

Despite the objections of a variety of critics as to the value of case study (Bassey, 1999, p. 34-35), I see much merit in the work of Helen Simons (1996) where she welcomes the paradox between study of the singularity and the search for generalization which "yields both the unique and the universal understanding" (p. 225):

[We need to] embrace the paradoxes inherent in the people, events and sites we study and explore rather than try to resolve the tensions embedded in them...Paradox for me is the point of case study. Living with paradox is crucial to understanding. The tension between the study of the unique and the need to generalize is necessary to reveal both the unique and the universal and the unity of that understanding. To live with ambiguity, to challenge certainty, to creatively encounter, is to arrive, eventually, at 'seeing' anew. (Bassey, 1999, p. 237-8).

My world as an professional educator, educational researcher and senior woman manager abounds in paradox, tension and ambiguity, as do case studies or studies of singularities; therefore, they seem to be an appropriate means to investigate and improve my practice and clarify my values as living educational standards of practice (Whitehead, 1999).

Investigating the nature of my educative influence

While clear definitions are not easy to find in leadership and human relations and often not even very useful, another of my purposes in analyzing these two case studies is to examine and analyze how I influence people. I recognize that 'influence' is a complex subject:

Whereas simple concepts are typically open to crisp definition, complex concepts are usually defined vaguely (Leithwood, et. al, 1999, p. 6).

It is mostly through other people that I get the tasks done that are required to manage systems and improve student learning. If I couldn't influence people then, I couldn't do my job.

'Most definitions of leadership', Yukl claimed, 'reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other people [or groups] to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization' (1994: 3). Influence, then, seems to be a necessary part of most conceptions of leadership. This suggests that most of the variances in leadership concepts, types or models can be accounted for by differences in who exerts influence, the nature of that influence, the purpose for the exercise of influence and its outcomes (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 6).

Clarifying the nature of my educative influence as a senior administrator is essential to my study as I seek answers to the question, 'How can I improve my practice? As I said to Greg Buckles, principal,

...what I'm trying to turn, find, or uncover is my capacity to influence. And, what does it look like, how does it work? How do I get things done? And, then how can I get better at getting things done? (transcript of conversation with Greg Buckles, February, 1999, p. 1).

I want to show the nature of my educative influence and my living standards of practice which are the values that I hold myself accountable for in my daily life and work. They are living because they emerge in the living of my life according to the values that I hold to be true and at the same time changing and refining as a result of life's experiences. I am in agreement with Susan and Thomas Kuczmarski (1995), "that values stem over time from four factors: 1) family and childhood experiences, 2) conflict events which evoke self-discovery, 3) major life changes and experiential learning, and 4) personal relationships with 'important' individuals" (p. 43). The process of researching my practice has driven me to bore into the depths of my being to uncover and discover what I stand for and who I am, to reveal my ontology. It has been an unrelenting poking and probing to find understanding and explanation for my values. Those standards are confirmed or denied in critical incidents (Whitehead, 1993; McNiff et. al., 1996, p. 41). "New insights which manifest as 'Aha!' experiences are often actually insights that we gradually become aware of and then wonder why it took so long to see the obvious" (McNiff, 2000a, p.8).

Critical incidents can be transformatory events when they evoke anger, feelings of violation and at the other end of the continuum, moments of real joy and pleasure. Reflecting on incidents that elicit strong emotion forces me to confirm my adherence to my values or to see myself as a living contradiction not living my values as fully as I would like (Whitehead, 1989). These critical incidents are frequently painful and I respond by wanting to deny my actions or the response of others to my actions. Over the course of researching my practice by addressing questions like, "How do I improve my practice?" I have become more capable of facing these incidents for all that they can teach me so that I can improve. I see improvement, much like Dewey's preferred expression, "growth" (Ryan, 1995), as a positive force although I recognize, and must remind myself, that others may see it from a deficit perspective. It seems to me that educators are in the improvement business.

Because my responses to critical incidents are both cognitive and emotional, they can provide opportunities for my learning and improvement. Much of the research on leadership has focused only on the cognitive and behavioural aspects with researchers looking for models and frameworks to understand the world of the educational administrator (Leithwood et al., 1999). 4 While I find it difficult to define my meaning of "emotions", those "pesky interlopers" (Beatty, 2002), the stories in this chapter and in Chapter Four clarify my relationships and emotional leadership. Drawing on Denzin's (1984) definition, Beatty (2002) says that emotions

...reference truths, or feelings that are deeply felt by the person -- truths, that is, that touch the heart. In this sense...they lie at the inner core of the moral person. ...their meanings must be revealed to the self so that the self becomes attached to them. In this way the person is connected...is established through the interpretations that individuals give to their emotional experiences. Emotionality connects the person to society (p. 85)(p.2).

As an emerging leader, I learned to practice "emotional labour" (Hochschild, 1983 in Beatty, 2000) and to recognize that:

"The hierarchical relationship between reason and emotion has particular implications for life in organizations--for leaders and for followers--in that it is often played out as one of mutual exclusion...that same is synonymous with unemotional is re-enacted continually" (Beatty, 2000, p. 334).

Brenda Beatty (2000) found in her research that the emotional side of the leader is usually ignored. "Indeed, the emotional causes and effects of so many conditions, to which a leader may deliberately or inadvertently contribute, remain under-explored, while the emotional processes of the leader her/himself remain virtually uncharted territory" (p.333). Fortunately, the work of Noddings (1984), Gilligan (1982) and Shakeshaft (1995) 5 and others supports what I have learned over time and through experience - that subverting emotions may be antithetical to being an effective leader through caring, connecting, relating and valuing the other in professional practice.

Working With Greg and Cheryl

In the following studies in singularity (Bassey, 1995) or case studies, I study in depth my relationship with two staff with whom I have worked intensively over a period of time and who have been willing collaborators. Greg Buckles was an elementary school principal in my family of schools where I did have a direct supervisory role and Cheryl Black was a secondary school teacher and then vice-principal with whom I did not have a supervisory role. With each of these stories I describe and explain who they are and how we have worked together. In each case in an iterative process I have shared the story with them and asked them to respond in terms of the accuracy of the story and of how they can validate or clarify it by adding anecdotes or elaboration. In many cases I have asked specific questions, in particular, about how I have influenced them and if they are able to track that influence to the improvement of student learning. I am hoping that you will see my educative influence on them and they on me in reciprocal learning and growth and the passion that we share for students and learning.

My Work With Greg Buckles, Principal

Greg Buckles, Elementary Principal-extraordinaire, now retired. A friend with strongly-held values and great integrity. I have known Greg for 15 years.

As I reviewed the story Greg wrote of his life as a principal (Buckles, 1997), our e-mails over four years, the transcripts of the Pauline Johnson Family of Schools' meetings, his School Improvement Plans and our transcribed conversations, I began to see our influence on each other, our reciprocal learning, and the standards I use to judge my own performance. At time of the final writing of my thesis, Greg has retired from the principal position and I miss his influence and our relationship. On the validity of a single case as representative of a known cohort, I agree with Erben (1998) that "although no two teachers [or principals] will be exactly alike, it is unlikely that they will not echo common themes and concerns in relation to the demands of an established curriculum" (Jardine, 1992; Rampazi, 1996) (p. 6). I do not intend Greg simply to be representative but his life as a principal and our relationship can stand as an example to describe and explain my relationship with principals, my learning in that capacity and my educative influence on them. I have shared this story with him at many points along the way and he is completely comfortable with it (Buckles e-mail August 27, 2001).

First, let me give some background on our relationship and experiences. Greg was an elementary school principal whom I had known for more than fifteen years. Our relationship had built over those years while we had each held a variety of positions in the Brant board and grown stronger as we worked together intensively during 1995-2000. An exemplary principal, he is a large man, a football player in his youth, has a wonderful earthy laugh and cares passionately about children in a calm, caring and respectful way. When he was posted to his last school, there had been many problems with relationships with parents; after he arrived, there were few. He had amazing skills in listening and building relationships with a whole variety of people: "Your capacity to step into the shoes of the teacher helps her to unload the hurt." (Delong, J., e-mail 11/11/98). Greg was loved and admired by his peers, superiors, teachers, students and parents. Even as I talk about him I feel his warmth and strength of character.

I wish in an internal dialogical way to substantiate some of these claims to an educative relationship, to demonstrate to the reader that in a critical way I am aware of the issues and am reflecting on them. I recognize that there is so much in this study about relational ways of knowing and that when I say that 'Greg was loved and admired', that it will cause some readers discomfort. Let me say that I recognize that there are difficulties in communicating the meanings in educative relations that are articulated in Bataille's (1962) work on eroticism and the erotico-spiritual energy that was part of the way in which Greg and I worked together and learned from each other.

Integrity oozed from his pores. When the teachers and principals went on strike for two weeks in October, 1997, 6 he was one of the few who did not join the picket line. Principals did not have the legal right to strike (even though at the time they were members of the teachers' federation) and it was contrary to his values not to go to work. While others who crossed the picket line were criticized and even threatened, I never heard any criticism of Greg either during or after the strike because everyone understood that he lived according to his strongly-held values.

When Greg first joined the Pauline Johnson (PJ) Family of Schools where I was the superintendent he said that he hoped that I would help him improve his knowledge of curriculum so that he could become a better curriculum leader. Two years later he was regarded not only in the PJ Family but also across the system as a leader in curriculum and assessment. It seemed like a fairly simple formula: I provided the support and opportunities and Greg worked at learning the new skill or strategy, improved his practice in his school and then shared his knowledge with the system.

Whenever I introduced an opportunity to try something new that might improve student learning, Greg would volunteer and I knew that he would give the project his best effort. In terms of assessing directions for principals in the family, I used Greg as a test. In an e-mail, I said, "Whenever I'd heard about complaints that I was pushing principals to be curriculum leaders, I'd check back with you to see if I was expecting too much. I'd say to myself, 'If Greg can do this, so can the rest.' Was that fair? Maybe not; because you are so committed." One of the criticisms of me is that I hold unreasonably high expectations and this may be evidence. During the years, 1997-99, his school was involved in many innovative projects such as a provincial research project on playground activities, Television Ontario's pilot program called 'Galaxy' and action research compensatory education projects.

He provided leadership in many projects, committees and organizations in Brant County and then in Grand Erie including the implementation of the new School Councils for Brant and the School Leadership Program:

When the time came that I could put together a team to plan and implement a school leadership program I knew that I needed your interpersonal skills not only on the team but also shared with the new administrators. Because of the importance of the task ahead in finding leaders for our schools given the number who have or are planning to retire, I requested that I be able to pull together the team I needed. Your name was on the list. Administrative Council approved my list. And, fortunately, you agreed (Delong e-mail 11/11/98).

Another area of our shared experiences was integrating research-based professionalism into the school-planning process. In my role as superintendent, I encouraged, supported and approved the writing and implementing of school plans for improvement in all the schools in the family. Greg was quick to learn and implement the school planning process. After he learned the action research process, he then took the school planning to a new level by incorporating the research process into the school planning process. In particular, he incorporated the means to answer the questions I frequently asked him and his colleagues: "How are we improving student learning? How do we know? What is the evidence?" Because of his values, credibility and accomplishments, he influenced his colleagues to follow his lead. 7 His school was an exemplar for the board because it served a low socio-economic population and yet in 1999 had one of the highest grade three test scores in the board and two of his teachers won Prime Minister's Science and Technology awards. Visionary principals, like Greg, have proven to be instrumental in improving test scores (Dean, 2000).

At each monthly family of schools meetings, I planned professional development sessions on curriculum and assessment that would be led by principals in the family and curriculum support staff. As follow-up support for the learning, I committed a large proportion of the family of schools' contingency budget to the curriculum area that we identified as the focus for that year. My intention was that I took on the responsibility of ensuring that principals had professional development sessions where they could acquire the knowledge, skills and confidence to teach their staff and to recognize good practice when they saw it in classrooms. Their responsibility was to learn, pass on the knowledge and ensure that it was happening in the classrooms. The following excerpt from a conversation between us gives evidence of my educative influence on Greg, to uncover my capacity to influence (transcript of conversation with Greg Buckles, February, 1999, p. 1), that affected learning in classrooms and of our reciprocal learning. Again, I will include my reflections in comic font.

Greg: Well, what about the early literacy program. I mean, we have talked about the parameters, and you set the parameters for that. You came out with that one sheet, "Here's what I expect" and so on. We met with our staff; we worked with the action research project. You were part of the in-service on action research. So you shared there, directly with staff. That whole project now goes down to the classroom level. So what teachers are looking for, what they are writing down, what they are observing has all been influenced by what you have taught in terms of what action research is and the process of action research. They have taken it to the point to where now they implement that; they implement their program and they do it within the model of action research; they bring their information and their stories and their comments back together and now we can see that what we have done has or has not had an influence on our kids. Even if it hasn't, it doesn't matter because now we know that that's not the route to go. What we are attempting to establish in our dialogue is that my educative influence is evident in the work of Greg influencing the practice of his teachers who in turn influence the improved learning of their students. This is always a difficult path to trace when I am not in direct contact with children in classrooms. My influence is indirect through my 'valuing the other' relationship with Greg.

Jackie: Right, for sure.

Greg: So we can change our practice and we can be assured that this isn't going to work with our kids. Now what that means is that now we're not wasting our time. On the positive sense, if it works, and a certain aspect of it worked or modifications of it worked, we now know that. Now, where did this all originate? Yes, the board gave us an allotted amount of money but it was through you as a superintendent that you created the criteria for the use of that money. With input, obviously. You've been part of the process to train, you've been part of the process to work with principals on the action research and then now, you've put the trust in your people to follow through and bringing that down to the classroom level. It was so affirming that Greg could see how I was building that culture of inquiry and reflection and providing the supports so teachers could conduct the research on their practice and trusting principals to follow through (transcription of conversation, Feb. 1999).

When I invited principals to join a group who would be researching their own practice in an initiative funded by the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, 8 he immediately volunteered. Over the course of the 1996-97 school year, Greg worked with five other principals to research his life as a principal. It was very hard work for Greg but he persisted, never missed a session, and his story, "Greg's Story" (Buckles, 1997), is part of "Voices of Principals" (Delong, 1999). He talked about how I had been unwilling to provide a structure and specific direction when they started their research and writing and how in the long run that had been a better way to hear their voices. Because of this and other experiences, since then I have changed my support for action research processes by giving more guidance through framework questions: part of my improvement in my practice as a result of working with Greg and others. My reason for changing was that I thought some guidelines, not prescriptions, would reduce for others the degree of struggle that Greg had experienced. He talked too about how the process had made him more reflective and more confident having collected the data and having written about his practice.

After Greg wrote his story for "Voices of Principals", I wrote a response to his story. I talked to him about the fact that through his willingness to take a risk he encouraged others to try too: he became a role model for many of his colleagues as well as staff and students. The transcripts of the meetings show Greg's struggle with writing about his practice. (Greg confirmed this in the Feb., 1999 transcript, p.15). I remember several occasions when he wondered if he could do it and if I had suggestions that would make it easier for him to complete the task. I suggested that he tape his thoughts and I would arrange to get them transcribed. He followed this suggestion to start and then as his confidence in writing grew, he didn't need the taping anymore.

In the following rather lengthy passage transcribed from our February meeting we are reviewing his writing. I include my reflections on my educative influence and my value of valuing the other. It is interesting that over three years later, I can still hear Greg's voice and feel his warmth.

Jackie: There are a couple of points that I noted on that second page (of his writing). In the second paragraph, you said, "Your support and encouragement have motivated me to a large extent in doing what I felt over the past few years." A recurring theme of my faith in others' capacities that motivates them. I wonder if you can articulate what that looks like.

Greg: Okay, I think the whole business of action research is...I know when it was first brought to my attention, of course you know, "Oh really?"

Jackie: (I laugh) You volunteered, Greg. I have definitively said that I will never make action research mandatory. The participants have to come willingly and be allowed to leave if they want. In the "Voices of Principals" project, one principal did leave, with no recriminations.

Greg: I know I did. I know I did. I think you have to look at me and my personality in terms of this whole scenario too, because I am the kind of person that, even though I'm not accepting of the first thing that comes off of the truck, I will look and I will make sure, but I feel that I am also sensible enough to have a good look at it. So, even though I am thinking what's in it for me? I still will look at it because I hate it when somebody says, "That's a terrible idea" and they haven't even looked at it. That's not fair. So, when I originally looked at it, I began to see, "Well, this looks good." I have always said that we don't have enough data to prove our point and yet, I've always been schooled in data being the kind of data you get with a control group and so on, you know, the clinical type data. And yet, we're not clinicians, we're practitioners. So, how do you get that data? So this is what intrigued me. And yet, even though I've been through and I am convinced that certainly the data is valid data, I still find it difficult to get other people to realize that this is valid and practical data that you can use. Certainly there is ...you can't use a formula on it and take it to the level of significance with statistics, but you have good solid data and, let's face it, if you go on in education, you begin to realize that that data is just as valid if not more valid that some of the clinical data that comes out of the university. The point that you were making last night. One of the hardest ideas to get across to practitioners is that their knowing is real knowledge. They go back to their positivist experiences at university, to the 'real data'. I feel that only through doing the research do they learn this way of knowing. So, that's where I'm coming from.

So, what did you do there? Well, number one, you provided the opportunity and I think that is really important. First of all, what you did for me is you showed me what action research was all about. Now, you didn't do that perhaps, directly, I mean you brought in Jack Whitehead, you brought in all of these other folks; we sat at King George with Ruth McNiff? Here my influence is in bringing in the experts to work with the staff.

Jackie: Jean

Greg: Jean McNiff. I got a lot out of that session; a lot of questions were answered. I'd done some reading, you provided me with the material, okay, you didn't push me but you provided me with the material. In other words, you knew how to throw the hook and if you want to use that analogy (Maybe it's a poor one) you were able to put out the carrot and I was able to jump after the carrot because I'm looking for the carrot. Now, if I didn't like the taste of the carrot, I would certainly have backed off but because of the fact that I did like that and I did like what I saw, that's why I pursued it. Now, in anything, I know what you tend to do is to provide a tremendous amount of opportunity. I open the doors and people choose whether they want to enter or not. Greg chose to enter. And when he did I demonstrated that I cared about him and provided the supports.

There's BARN, 9 there's this group, there's that group and so on. What I have to do is be selective in terms of here's the amount of time I can spend, and here's what I think really pertains to me. That's why the action research in my school, is, to me, of primary importance. This whole business of the role of the principal (reference here to the six principals that I supported to research their practice) that was great because I really needed to understand what it was. I really did and I needed to collect some data on how I did what I did and why I did what I did and perhaps how I can improve what I do. Did he get the essence of action research? Great! When it came to the actual filtering to the school level, with the early literacy, I thought, this was great because now it's not just personal, it becomes something that is good for kids and that's what I felt I was all about. I had started this focus on early literacy in compensatory education schools in the board with a budget for resources and in-service for staff and an expectation of researching the strategy that they chose to improve literacy and Greg's school was one of those schools. Since this was a low socio-economic community where teachers and the principal were investigating their practice to improve the learning of the children, Susan Noffke's (1997) claim that living educational theory cannot address issues of power and privilege is negated. The school reports provide evidence not only of Greg's growing knowledge and confidence in researching his practice and of his ability to support his teachers to research their own but also of addressing issues of power and privilege. Here is a section from the Woodman-Cainsville School Early Literacy Action Research Report:

The project undertaken this year has proven to be of benefit to students. Definite gains were made by teaching specific reading strategies and using materials from a variety of disciplines. Our students were able to become more independent readers. Our assessment techniques have provided us with additional data to more accurately identify student strengths and weaknesses. The research project has enabled us to evaluate our reading program and make necessary changes and improvements in its delivery. We feel that our accountability towards improving student learning and providing appropriate programming for students is enhanced through action research. We have also been able to identify areas where improvement is program delivery is necessary and will take the steps to address this. (Buckles et al., 1999).

Greg: Perhaps, that's what I learned or had re-emphasized to me through the role of the principal research project. So that's what I saw. Like when I take a look at the comment, "Your support and encouragement have motivated me to a large extent in doing what I have done over the past few years." (Buckles e-mail, 1998) Because you were there and you made me think, you asked me questions, you did not push this on me, all right? You gave me an opportunity and certainly put things out there that would make it well worth my while to pursue and I'm thinking in terms of the early literacy. The money was there. You could have said so easily, "Okay, (to all of us) here's $3,000.00 per school; just write up something and tell me what you are doing." That would have been so much easier you know? It would have been. When you start to think about accountability, the business that we are in, does it not make more sense to say, "You set out a plan and you set out an objective that you want to accomplish and then you tell me, at the end of that objective whether it was good enough for kids?" I was showing Greg in words and actions that I valued him and saw his potential to make a difference in the lives of students and teachers. There's a big difference because I could have just gone and taken the money and just bought a bunch of materials but that wasn't the point. The point is you wanted a program and you wanted something that was good for kids. In his words are my words about being accountable and having evidence that a program improves learning and not just throwing money at something without the accountability. So, we ran and worked in conjunction with the other groups and it worked out nicely. Now, having gone through that for two years, I think what I would like to do, if I was here, see you never finish, what I'd like to see the person who takes over the school do, is to say, "Okay, let's look at another question." I am finding that once a second cycle of researching is completed, it becomes the regular practice of the person and with a much deeper understanding. One project doesn't institutionalize the process. At an action research project session on January 18, 2002, Joanne Finch, a grade 8 teacher in her second project said, "I was losing momentum and feeling that I'd lost the point of my research when I realized that the research was about improving myself!" The other finding of note is that generally in a second project researchers get deeper into their values and experience some discomfort with the realization that they are living contradictions (Whitehead, 1989), that is, not living their values fully in their practice (conversation with Diane Morgan, April 17,2002 as she read this). Our question has basically been, 'Has the guided reading program been good for kids?' and this year we've expanded that to some additional readings in the science and technology and history and geography areas, too. So that we can see if there is any co-relation there. What I'd like to do is, possibly, although the guided reading does have its strengths, I'm looking for something else too, because we have lots of parent volunteers and it's really hard to get them in. We're finding that, although the guided reading is an excellent program and we will continue with it, it will be part of our practice. We'd like to supplement it with something that's structured. Clearly evidence of the action-reflection spiral and next questions. (Whitehead, 1989; McNiff, 1992).

Jackie: Are you talking about All Star (a reading program)?

Greg: I don't know. With All Star you need a high degree of parent involvement. There may be something else out there, I don't know. But you can see what it's doing. Here he's reflecting on his own reflections and posing his own questions without my asking them. It's getting us to say, "Okay, we've looked at this and we know the benefits of this guided reading program and we know it'll work under these conditions, but we also have some kids with some difficulties attending and focussing. And how do we deal with them?" Do we use alternate programs for them? Do we look at a more structured program for the class and maybe the kids that are doing well, have alternate programs for them? How do we manage that? I think those are questions that we need to take a look at over the next while for I can see us continually benefiting from that kind of budget assistance and the action research format.

Jackie: You might want to look at last Monday's board meeting and The Early Literacy Review Report because that actually has some of the suggestions that you might be looking for in it. I can't release this yet but there will be some direction coming in this. I had reported to the board on a system review I had conducted of early literacy programs across the board and made some recommendations. Here I was showing him the way ahead in terms of policy directions and making the connections -- this is part of my influence in helping people make connections.

Greg: Good, good.

Jackie: The point I want to make is that the research that you've done, that Ruth [Mills] 10 presented to the early literacy committee, had been folded into the directions of the board for the future and the difference between that report and some of the others is we had our own data from our own kids and our own teachers in our own classrooms. That really resonated with the committee. I felt a real confidence about the program and where it worked and where it didn't because of the research we'd done, which in the past hasn't been there and that means going to the board and saying, "Give me money because it is a good thing to do to help early literacy." I can't do that anymore. I have to be able to say, "This is how we are using it and this is how we know it works for kids." I'm celebrating and valuing Greg's work and the staff's work so that he and they see the benefits not only to the students in his school but across the system and their influence on policy decision-making.

Greg: I think our staff need to know that too. He made the connection. They have to realize that the money just is not out there and available. If indeed they want to access money for programs, then you have to have a plan in place... But no, that's where I see the support. I know full well that if I can come to you and, you know, I try not to. I try to deal with it within my own building but, and with the funding that I have but, I know full well that I'd say to you, "Jackie, I would like some additional supply time for my two grade three teachers to do this, this and this with respect to early literacy", I know I'll get that. Now I don't take advantage of that. I think I've done that maybe once or twice but I know it is there. Okay? So, when I say support, you know, I can count on you for not just the financial support but also the moral support and this is one of the things I think is important to me. If I am sort of wedging my way through a new area, I really need the support. Because of the strength of our relationship, he knows that I will give money and moral support for him and his teachers to research programs that improve student learning and I know that he will be accountable. You know, I've mentioned in here that I was an opportunist in the sense that I spread my bread on the incoming water and that's true. I'm not a real risk taker although some people may think I am. I really have to have my facts straight before I forge ahead. Now, I don't have to know the thing 100%, I realize that but I have to feel comfortable and I need enough information so that I feel comfortable to move ahead. Now you seem to match that very nicely and that's why I think we work well together because I think you and I think alike in a lot of ways. But, by the same token, I believe that you know me well enough that 1) you're not overwhelming me with stuff. You're giving me enough, you're showing me opportunities, you're letting me choose and then when I need the help and support, you are there. Because I know I could call you and even if you weren't here, within a day or so I'd have an answer back. Now I know if the way things are today that the timeline is obviously going to increase to a certain degree because of the size of responsibility but at least I know that it is coming. Notice how many times he says he 'knows.' I feel that that trust comes from demonstrating that I am who I say I am and acting accordingly over a period of time and with many common experiences. I think that is very important to me because if I didn't get the support and I had some questions, I would tend to slow down. This issue of support is one of knowing intuitively how much is needed and when. I would maybe try a few things but then if I ran into a roadblock and I wasn't comfortable with the direction then I tend to back off and wait. I find that you give me that support. I think that a significant error in implementation of a change is the lack of sustained support because every change process experiences an implementation dip (Fullan, 1992) and if you aren't there to provide the support in the bad times, the change will lose its momentum. You give me just enough to keep me going ahead. Great!

Jackie: It's interesting because Cheryl said the same thing when I was coaching her through the action research process, almost the exact same words. 11 You might think that we are just talking but when I start to hear some of the same things then I've got some validation of some of the items in here. So, it helps to listen to you talk. I'm learning about how to support practitioners doing research and hearing the same themes and patterns.

Greg: That's important. To me it's important and obviously to the other person, it was important and I think that is a good quality that you have, that you tend to read people well enough (and I don't know if you do this with everyone) but certainly with me you read me well enough to know when to intervene and when not to. And there are sometimes I know I've been into roadblocks and you've kind of just let me think, going back to [writing about] the role of the principal. You have that period of confusion and for some that's a longer period. With me, with this particular role of the principal, I still was confused for quite some time. I wanted to bring out his own voice in his own way and had to force myself to trust that he would find his way. Timing is an important skill in teaching and with adult learners, I think even more important.

Jackie: Probably seemed longer than it was.

Greg: And then I took hold and identified what it really was we were after, and I know all of us were in the same boat. It was nice to have the group because we were talking back and forth. Greg recognizes that critical friends and a supportive environment provide the safe environment to take a risk. This was part of my learning that I used in the design of the masters cohort program. It was an excellent exercise in clarification and you would not tell us what it was we had to do. I know that drove some of us round the bend. You know, like "Jackie, what do you want?" And you would say something to the effect, "Well, think about what this is about. Think about a plan that you might have; think about what you do; think about your story." Note that he repeats my use of 'think' four times. I am always encouraging that inquiry and reflection mode in staff and students. It is my firm belief that clear, creative and critical thinking can bring improved learning for all members of the community. In the back of our minds we're saying, "To heck with the story, tell us what you want." No, no, no. What you are doing.... I guess all of us tend to work around a framework and the framework, this is what is expected, now fill in the details. Yet, what you were doing, was just the opposite. You were saying, "I'm not going to give you anything, you look at what you do, you look at your story and from that you extrapolate the framework." Since that early experience I find that I am providing more suggestions in the forms of questions to be answered in the action research process but I still push them to look inside and at their own practice.

Jackie: Exactly

Greg: And that's what you were working on. Well, under the stresses and everyday conditions, we don't think that way, we really don't. Maybe we should, maybe we should be more reflective on what we do. And I think really, if we slowed down and thought a little more about what we did and how we can improve what we do, we'd work a lot less hard, smarter but not harder. Thomas Homer-Dixon (2000) calls this The Ingenuity Gap. So, that's where I can see that kind of stuff coming out. You were there to support, I'm sure that when you turned around you probably had a lot of paper thrown at you at that session. But by the same token, it really got us to think.

Jackie: Well the other thing is too, that I've learned through these processes how to do a better job of asking the right questions and giving support. What I know now, what I didn't know then was that one of the major keys is to get people to write a short story and then get the dialogue from that and see how the process comes out of it. That's a pretty important discovery, which to my knowledge, none of the other people who coach or teach action research has used. So, if I were doing it today, I would do it slightly differently. There was also the assumption that I knew the answers -- which I didn't. I think this kind of open dialogue of sharing learning, our reciprocal learning, provides evidence of the breakdown of the hierarchical to a more democratic form of relational leadership.

Greg: You didn't, no.

Jackie: Because, everybody had to find their own process and you are right, the learning comes out of the process of the writing and the thinking and the talking which is a different way of learning.

Greg: Yes, it really is. You know what really was the turning point for me was that experience that you sat in on with Mrs. S. and the teacher. Besides supporting my principal in a difficult situation, I was able to help him see his knowledge of the role of the principal. You asked me to write that up and I wrote it up and as I was writing it up, I was thinking to myself, this is just a normal thing here yet, after I wrote it up and analyzed what I did, I was thinking, "I found some things here." You know, nothing spectacular but the revelation was the sense that, "Oh look at the skills that I'm using but look at how I'm using them. Greg was close to having that real confidence of his way of knowing and I wanted to make sure it was solidly embedded.

"Greg's Story" (Buckles, 1997) shows very clearly his commitment to treating people whatever their age or position with respect and caring about them and their needs. He talked about preferring the face to face conversations to written and telephone conversations. The skill of listening, an essential skill for building relationships, is a frequent theme in that he showed he cared about people by listening. One of his staff members said, "I don't always get the answer I want but I feel you listen and we can constructively discuss the issues" (Buckles, 1997). He talked frequently about being positive and using a problem-solving model. I believe strongly that school leadership is for leaders with positive attitudes (Dean, 2000). At the Grand Erie Administrators' Retreat on April 9, 1999, Peter Moffatt said, "As leaders in your schools and communities, you carry the hope."

I could see Greg's problem-solving process as one of careful and complete investigation through gathering and analyzing data, listening with empathy and looking for a win-win solution. That capacity to see and feel events from the other perspective and to suspend judgment is captured in "Everyone believes that their issues or concerns are important and I try to listen and respond to these concerns in the best way I can. My door is open to students, staff and parents" (Buckles, 1997).

That capacity to diffuse situations and de-escalate conflict is evident in his description of his response when a parent made inflammatory comments, "I didn't react at that point. I just simply let it go by..." (Buckles, 1997). 'Simply' doesn't quite capture the significance of this statement. If I could learn to just simply let it go by, I'd have far fewer conflict situations. Not easy to do. By letting the parents share their concerns and frustrations, they reveal deeper problems that they will share only when they trust you.

As I reflect on this study I see the recurring themes of my valuing the other, our reciprocal learning and my improvement in my practice of supporting principals to improve student learning. When I talked to Greg about his way of being an effective principal, I was affirming and articulating my own values around leadership and shaping my own professional identity (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). While I was responding to Greg, I was learning about myself.

The difficulty you and most others who have that natural talent with people have is that you don't always recognize what you do that creates those relationships. I believe that recording and analyzing your life as a principal and sharing and writing your story has helped you understand how you do what you do. It has helped you teach others. It has also helped me think about my relationship with you and other principals and pushed me to analyze what works in relationships (e-mail to Greg, 1999).

"I will summarize the points I made in my answer to the question, What have I learned from you, Greg?

You inspire me with your tremendous capacity to make people feel valued

You confirm my belief that principals can be and must be curriculum leaders.

Clearly you start from the foundation of building the relationship first.

You inspire me because of your solid values-base.

You teach me that superintendents can work collaboratively with principals and that we can learn so much from each other. I've always felt that we've worked together as colleagues, never as people in a hierarchy.

You've taught me about diffusing situations, about listening and caring, about the value of consummate patience.

You reinforce my belief that real relationships cannot exist without trust. The trust we have has been built over time and through a variety of experiences. From my standpoint, it has never been at risk.

You made me feel valued. Even in what some principals might have seen as threatening situation, you said, "It was good that the superintendent was there as well because she was able to share some perceptions as to why the parent reacted as she did. Throughout this discussion the teacher became a little less anxious and felt a little more comfortable about the whole situation. Above all, we should not be taking what the parent was saying personally. It was good sound advice that actually comforted the teacher." (Buckles, 1999) Even superintendents need to feel that they are making a difference in the lives of students, teachers and, yes, principals. (Delong, e-mail 11/11/98).

Observing my work with Greg and others, I see that the roles of teacher and learner flow back and forth. When I was teaching Greg about curriculum and assessment and action research, I was the teacher; when he was working with the family of schools' principals and parents, I was the student, learning about building relationships. It even happened simultaneously in that when I was teaching Greg about action research, I was learning about how to support others conducting research on their practice: what to do and what not to do. An example of this was around helping him get his thoughts on paper. This kind of educative relationship between principal and superintendent changes the traditional power relationship as we are learners together in a less hierarchical and more collaborative relationship. This is what I think I mean by reciprocal learning and I think helps to explain my non-hierarchical view of the world in that I want to improve my practice and can learn from and with anyone, no matter the age or position.

As I have been reliving this experience with Greg, I hope I am communicating to you, the reader, in a "readerly text" not just a "writerly text" (Mellett, 2000) and valuing you as the other. This study of singularity (Bassey, 1995) gives a clear picture of the role of dialogue in my relational leadership and in my learning as I think and learn through dialogue. I feel and wish to communicate the emotional warmth I feel in reviewing and reflecting on my work with Greg. In fact, I re-live and am present in that experience each time I read it and reflect on it. Having the photo of Greg on the page evokes physical, spiritual and emotional sensations to enhance the immediacy, vivacity and vitality of the experience. As I work with principals and support staff in my daily work, this embodied knowledge, this unfolding bodymind (Hocking et al., 2001), springs visually and emotionally to my view and regularly informs my ontology, epistemology and practice.

The second study of singularity (Bassey, 1995) is that of my friend, colleague, and co-researcher, Cheryl.

Cheryl Black, Teacher/Vice-Principal

Cheryl Black, teacher and vice-principal, is an individual I have influenced and who has validated that claim. In this introduction I share evidence of my recent influence and an example early in our relationship. I begin with her recent clear explanation of standards which she says emerged from having read one of the earlier versions of my standards (Delong, 2001a). From her final paper for the Reflective Practice masters' course that Susan Drake and I taught in the fall term of 2000:

Cheryl Black, friend, colleague, aspiring principal, leader, Action Research leader, superior classroom teacher for 20 years, co-researcher. I have known Cheryl for 21 years.

My standards of practice would be different than the standards of any other person because every person is a different combination of values. That is what makes each of us unique. Therefore, if my standards were based on my values, then my standards are just that, mine! The ability to show that my values are evident in my practice and, the knowledge that they make a difference in student learning, will go a long way in helping me define my role as an administrator (Black, 2000).

During the early years of my research, Cheryl was a secondary school teacher who taught Music, both vocal and instrumental. In September 2000, she was appointed elementary school vice-principal. Now I will go back to those early years to an e-mail that I received when she had completed a draft of her first action research project. It was upsetting to me that this was how a competent, caring, committed teacher felt about how her work was valued by the public-"stress and uncertainty". It still makes me feel sad and angry that she would feel that way but also pleased that I was able to provide the supports she needed to feel pride in her work and confidence in her personal philosophy.

Jackie,

Here it [her first action research project] is for what it is worth. Please be ruthless. If there is anything I need to change or adjust please let me know.

I'm also curious as to what (if anything) I would have to change in order to have my presentation accredited. It is very affirming, in this time of stress and uncertainty to have something of which I can be proud.

Thank you for your guidance and support which allowed me to validate my personal philosophy. (my emphasis) I affirmed and valued her knowledge and expertise. Not many people have the opportunity to collect evidence to prove to themselves and others their reason for becoming a teacher.

Sincerely,

Cheryl

(May, 1998).

How did our relationship come about?

In this second case study, or "study of singularity" (Bassey, 1995, p.109), I think another aspect of my influence is revealed in my educative relationship with Cheryl. It is important to note that since she worked in a school in an area of the school district that was not in my family of schools, I had no supervisory role with her. I recognize that the role of superintendent carries a power with it regardless and while there probably were issues of positional power in our relationship in the early years, they dissipated with our deepening relationship. Cheryl and I have known each other for 21 years but have worked together more intensively during the last five years (1997-2002), first as I taught her action research and then with her growing competence and confidence, as she taught others and we became co-researchers. As with Greg, this study emerged in an iterative process of writing and dialogue as we both grew in our understanding of our lives as professional educators.

With the writing of this second case study, I began (July, 1998) by writing a brief description of my thoughts and feelings as I watched an experienced and exciting secondary school music teacher, Cheryl, present her first action research project to a group of teachers on June 11, 1998. I have to this day a very clear and delightful image of the energy and excitement of this event. To that kernel of the case study I added the context of where our relationship had begun, focusing on the 1997-98 school year. Much to my chagrin, I also attempted to apply the draft standards of practice released by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT, 1998) to the life of this teacher as I have observed her and as she has reflected on her own life. Then I asked her to apply them to me. A classic example of living contradiction (Whitehead, 1989)! You will see that we eventually saw the madness of this (Delong & Whitehead, 1998). On many occasions (August, 1998 to April, 2002) I have asked Cheryl for reactions and responses to the study as to its accuracy and as to evidence she might provide to substantiate the claims that I was making about how I thought I had influenced her. With the words of Pam Lomax, former professor at Kingston University, UK, ringing in my ears, "I know of no administrator who has been able to show evidence that she improves student learning", I really pushed my research to see if I could find any evidence that, through Cheryl's work in the classroom, I had affected students' learning (conversation at AERA Annual Meeting, New York,1996).

In the beginning of our relationship I was the teacher, mentor and advisor; in time, we became friends. "We are well aware of the importance of mentoring today, but the line between mentor and friend is evanescent. Friends guide and learn from each other, especially in unexplored terrain (Bateson, 1989, p.103). Through many workshops, meetings and e-mail conversations as time went on, I began to see that it wasn't just a matter of my influencing her; she was very clearly influencing me. Then I asked her if she would apply the OCT Standards to my work. We soon came to the realization that we were becoming critical friends, not teacher and superintendent. This "critical event" (Whitehead, 1993; McNiff, 2000) occurred on November 14, 1998 as we developed a paper proposal for the International Conference on Teacher Research, (ICTR) 1999: 'How can we, as teacher and superintendent, improve our practice by assessing our influence on each other in our roles as educational leaders and critical friends?' (Black & Delong, 1999).

On December 4, 1998, I submitted an initial paper "Seeking an Understanding of Influence" which included this case study, to my validation group just prior to the annual conference of the Ontario Educational Research Council for response. That group included: Jack Whitehead as chair, Dr. Linda Grant, Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) Manager of Standards of Practice, Dr. Frances Squire, OCT Project Coordinator, Dr. Ron Wideman, Assistant Professor Nipissing University, Peter Moffatt, Director of Education, and Cheryl Black, teacher. I have incorporated their suggestions for improvement in this chapter and in the thesis.

Cheryl and her first action research project

Back to 1997-98. When Cheryl first indicated to me that she was interested in conducting an action research project, I was excited by the prospect because I had worked directly with only one other secondary school teacher, James Ellsworth (Ellsworth, 1997), curriculum consultant working with me in Career Education. She was the first secondary teacher who had come entirely of her own volition to do action research and with whom I had no direct supervisory influence. The issue of undue influence because of position is certainly a variable in assessing influence. When I asked Cheryl if she had engaged in this because of my power position, her response was that she had engaged because of a combination of workshops by Peter Rasokas, principal, and I, and by Jack Whitehead, her performance review that year and because of my enthusiasm. She said:

I believe that power doesn't necessarily go with the title; it often is based on the perceptions of people. I think positive power is more closely related to respect. The opinion of someone I respect is worth much more than someone in a position of authority that I do not respect (that's where I was going when I told you that your position was not the reason I got involved with action research; it was you personally) (Black, e-mail Sept. 20, 1998).

While this does not remove the position power as an issue, Cheryl confirms that she chose this direction because of our relationship, my influence as a person, not because of my position. We discussed this issue many times over the years and I think you will see in the evolution of our relationship that our voices had equal time and importance in our lives and in our joint papers (Black & Delong, 1999, 2000).

I want to share the process of her completion of her first Action Research Project. I had known Cheryl since 1981 when I had been teaching in the same school (after my return to teaching after a period of eight years at home raising my two children) and she was in her first year of teaching. From that first encounter and to this day I find her to be a very positive, fun-loving, creative person and very student-focused. So when I was informed that she had expressed an interest in conducting her own action research project, I was very pleased. Cheryl says that one time I said to her that if she was interested in starting an action research project that she should give me a call. So she called me and I visited her in her crowded music office. She seemed surprised that I would be available personally to spend time with her. Taking time and paying attention is demonstrating my valuing her and her knowledge.

I remember her very clear concerns about her students, her teaching and what the problems were that she wanted to research. I was well aware, as well, of her mixture of confidence and insecurity. This insecurity is a recurring pattern in practitioner researchers and is reminiscent of the lack of confidence I had in my research process so I could identify with her feelings. 12 When I asked her the source of this lack of confidence, she said:

I was uncertain as to the amount of extra work that I was creating for myself. Later I realized that since it was my project, it was up to me to determine the amount and nature of the data collection (Black, e-mail Nov. 22, 1998).

I encouraged her to begin the process and we talked about some of the data that she could collect as she implemented her project to build student self-esteem in her classroom and about the supports she could access.

I explained to her that I was planning a number of support activities for action researchers including Brant Action Research Network (BARN) which would meet once a month after-school as well as release-time workshop sessions on topics ranging from data collection and analysis to writing the report. This issue of sustained support is an important one for me. 13 There have been many examples of initiatives in education that have been one day or one year events and not processes supported over the long term that teachers become cynical. I did not want to be guilty of that insensitivity, that lack of valuing the other. Cheryl picked this up:

During my work experience with Jackie, she has gone beyond the expectations of her role in her positive reinforcement and professional support (Black, e-mail Sept 11, 1998).

I asked her about finding a critical friend and she indicated that the board music consultant, Kathy, had agreed to take that role. Over the 1997-98 school year we met at workshops and sharing sessions and she was a regular at all the opportunities to learn and share. I always looked forward to hearing her thoughts and progress. She shared her enjoyment of the process (and my valuing the other) in a conversation with

Jack Whitehead at one of the meetings:

I love coming to these sessions because working on my project by myself I frequently felt that I wasn't doing anything that any caring teacher wouldn't do. At the sessions, Jackie asks the right questions to give me more direction and finds ways to affirm that what I was doing was worthwhile. One of the ways was asking me to describe my project to Astrid (School Board Trustee). 14 That helped me share what was important to me and her enthusiasm helped me feel affirmed. I talked about the fact that conducting action research gave me 'emotional resilience' and she wrote it down. That meant something because she seemed interested in my emotional wellbeing as a teacher. And Jack said, 'I've just come from AERA and I didn't hear one presentation as exciting as yours'. That was the best birthday present that I ever got. What a gift! (Black, transcript of conversation, August 18, 1998, p. 5) That need for affirmation is in all of us but being affirmed encourages and inspires very capable people like Cheryl to grow and reach higher.

Over the year, Elaine MacAskill, curriculum consultant, and I planned, facilitated and presented a variety of action research sessions to provide sustained support for the staff doing their own research. The sessions were a combination of release-time (supply teachers provided) and after school sessions on topics such as 'Framing the Question', 'Gathering and Analysing Data', 'Writing the Report' and opportunities to talk and share their learning. Cheryl said:

Creating a forum for exchange of ideas shows professionals that their ideas are worthwhile. As a classroom teacher, it is too easy to work in a vacuum and lose sight of the fact that reacting to a perceived need in your class is a positive act. It is one thing to know in your head that you are making a difference but the validation of another professional, one whom you respect, can help you believe in your heart that what you are doing is important. My valuing her work encouraged her faith in herself (Black, e-mail, Sept 9, 1998).

In these sessions, my intention was to get them started and then fade into the background so they could learn from each other. While I had the understanding of the process, they were the practitioners who knew their lives in their classrooms with their students and I wanted to hear their voices. Cheryl said:

Positive educative influence looks like you. Yes, that's what I want to be --positive educative influence! Every time I think of you while the group members were sharing their respective projects, you were smiling and giving the speaker your complete attention. That alone is a positive experience for a teacher. This is power and position used in positive ways. Every meeting with just me or with a group, you asked us the question, "How can I help you?" or, "What would you like me to do for you?" I am encouraging inquiry and reflection with my personal support. You showed us that you respected our opinion and trusted our experience by allowing us to choose your means of helping us. The fact that you acted more as a facilitator than as a didactic teacher meant that we were trusted professionals. In a supportive environment built on trust, professionalism and reflection can thrive and flourish.

A more didactic approach of telling us the information at workshops would not add to our belief in our own ability. We would have still felt that your validation of our work was the only viable one and we would remain dependent on your opinion of our work. Developing confidence in our own ideas and encouraging us to discuss and collaborate with a critical friend was a beginning of new habits which would have a far greater impact on the remainder of our teaching careers. Like the commercial, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, Teach him to fish and you feed him for life (Black, e-mail, Aug 17, 1998).

Also, I tried to help new staff like Elaine MacAskill become the leaders of the action research support processes. I was, however, always there to provide sustained support. Cheryl observed that,

As Elaine gained more confidence in the process, Jackie validated her process by allowing Elaine more responsibility for planning and guiding the workshops and increasing her leadership opportunities (Black, e-mail, Aug 17, 1998).

Then came time for Cheryl to share her action research project in a sharing session. I can visualize this picture of Cheryl with a radiant smile and in a purple suit (that she had made herself) presenting her action research project to the BARN meeting on June 11, 1998 to a group of fifteen teachers and curriculum staff. She presented her story in a series of overheads with stories to illustrate her findings. Her oral and body language clearly conveyed her thorough enjoyment in teaching students (Black, transcript, June 11, 1998).

While she intended to improve the self-confidence of her students, ironically one of the outcomes of the project was new faith in her own abilities: "Believing that I am respected for my ability and knowledge is a rare feeling. Action Research gives credence to my knowledge and experience" (Black, 1998. p. 1). The perception of the public is often that teachers avoid accountability. Here was Cheryl delighted that, "No longer do I have to rely on vague, nebulous feelings of improvement when the proof is in the writing" (Black, 1998, p. 1). She helped us visualize her problem and made us laugh as she role-played the slouching teenager and his surly tone as he said, "I'm not singing, I wanted Tech and they stuck me here" (Black, 1998. p. 1).

After Cheryl presented her report on her project, several people in the group responded to her with commendations and thoughtful questions as to where she might go next. One of the group was a curriculum consultant from the Cayuga Office of the new board who had not met Cheryl before. She asked Cheryl to present her project to a group of secondary teachers in her area. Cheryl was getting the recognition from her peers that she deserved and I saw her extending her knowledge to other teachers so that their practice and the learning of their students might improve. Research-based professionalism was becoming part of the knowledge base of teaching and learning.

In terms of demonstrating growth through her performance review, Professional Growth Strand (PGS), Cheryl's school principal commented in the report:

Ms. Black is to be commended for the effort she put into her PGS this year. She is truly a reflective practitioner. Her efforts made a "difference for kids" and by sharing her work with other teachers, she continues her efforts to make music classes and schools in general, a better place for our students (Wibberley, June, 1998).

Moreover, Cheryl's first study became part of the knowledge base of teaching and learning through her workshop sessions in the board for Queens' University on November 11, 1998, at the Ontario Educational Research Conference on December 4, 1998 in Toronto, in the Ontario Action Researcher electronic journal. (Delong & Wideman, 1998-2002) and at the International Conference for Teacher Researchers, 1999 in Quebec. As she was extending her influence through her work, so was I.

As I heard her delight in her learning and improved teaching, I knew one more time why I invest so much time and energy into supporting teachers to research their practice. "I guess this whole process has been very affirming for me" (transcript of meeting, Aug 18, 1998, p.16). With an eye ever to the future, I hoped also that I might have supported another action researcher who would teach others research-based professionalism and contribute to a creating a culture of inquiry, reflection and scholarship. 15

Next Steps and Validation

At our August 18, 1998 meeting, we talked about her teaching other researchers, about further work on her project and about her interest in administration. She said that in order to teach action research in her school, she would have to be sensitive to the political climate of low teacher morale and dissatisfaction with the government 16 and consider whether to talk with the entire school staff or just work with one or two interested teachers. We talked about places in her report where there might be some claims that she could substantiate from her data archive and in each case she could cite where that data would be. I asked probing questions around whether she wanted to continue to work on the current topic and report or whether she preferred to start a new cycle of investigation with a new group of students having improved her strategy for helping to build self-esteem. Also she re-iterated her interest in pursuing advanced accreditation. At that time I was still working on that opportunity for her. 17

On the topic of her interest in school administration, her response was in the negative but she might be interested in being a department head. We still laugh, given that a year later she was starting the principals' qualifications course and shortly after was appointed vice-principal. I am always pushing people to see their capacity to be and do more. I could see her potential to influence a wider setting and although she was not yet ready, the seed was planted.

We also talked about connections between my work with her and her work with the students and about how I could improve the process I had used with her and the BARN group.

Jackie: If you were to look back over this year and your experience in this, how could I do it better? I want to know how to better support teachers; this need for improvement is essential to my enjoyment of the world.

Cheryl: That's hard. I already mentioned that it was intuitive or luck or just the timing of each of the workshops was impeccable. It was just bang on for me personally. I don't know if other people have the same feeling. 18 It was a little of both; my own research experience and paying attention to the needs of the group.

Jackie: I mean Elaine and I talked about it. Okay, now we've done this and we've done this, now it seems like this is sort of what we need next and so I mean it wasn't way ahead in advance planning. It was sort of almost one step at a time. As with the teaching of children, I start with where they are and take them the next step and Cheryl does the same.

Cheryl: Well then that's the same process that I went through with my students when every couple of weeks when I would say it's time for another journalling activity or they would ask, "We haven't used our books lately"; then I would sort of think about where and what kinds of things had happened at the school lately and what kind of issues they were dealing with and then I would give them 3 or 4 questions to get them started and I was doing it one step at a time as I watched them and what they appeared to need or analyzed what they appeared to need. Notice how we move from our learning to students' learning with the same philosophy and approach. I liked the fact that we weren't inundated with information, that we were given what we needed, that we weren't allowed to get heavily into the theory so that we weren't scared off.

Jackie: It's interesting to hear the cycle because that's how he [Jack] taught me. I kept thinking I should be getting more theory; I need to be doing more reading and he kept saying, "Write, I want you to write. I want you to collect data." And then it was a long time and all of a sudden the theory just came whoosh and I was reading 555 books. 19 That's true. Note my penchant for exaggeration -- it just seemed like that many. So I was actually using his model, as I taught you and Elaine and the others, that I've kept you away from the theory so that you don't think that somebody else has the answers. You actually have the answers and you just have to find them within your own writing and thinking. As with Greg, I believe in her knowledge and I want her to value it too.

Cheryl: And so the discussion groups that we participated in, which you would take a, I don't say the word "stand-back" but you would initiate discussion and them let the discussion continue rather than guiding it --controlling is not a better word because you would guide it when it was needed but you never controlled. So I've always been fascinated by whether or not people can practice what they preach. So your values were inherent because you were working with us, now I lost my train. You treated us as professionals and your values were inherent because the process was so closely related to what you were communicating. Does that make sense?

Jackie: So what were some of the values you think I was communicating? I am looking for validation of what I think my values are.

Cheryl: Respect for our professionalism, respect for our experience and our intelligence and allowing us to see that in each other was an added level, as opposed to you telling us to see it, we saw it by virtue of the situation in which you place us. Definitely, love and respect for kids because you wouldn't be working with us, working as hard as you did with us if you didn't care about the end result which would be improved learning for kids. I think that she has validated my values of the valuing the other in professional practice and building a culture of inquiry, reflection and scholarship (transcript of conversation, August 18, 1998).

Cheryl: Network Leader and Year Two Researcher

I often get asked the question about how to keep action research going after initial successes. I think my sustained support for Cheryl and the networks addresses this. When I was planning the 1998-99 years' activities in action research in the Grand Erie District School Board with Diane Morgan, 20 Program Coordinator, I asked her where I might find someone to continue the work I had begun in the Brant area since my expanded portfolio and the amalgamation tensions just would not allow for the same degree of involvement in BARN. This is the transition from my work in Brant to our work in Grand Erie. Diane offered to organize and facilitate the meetings but thought one of the practitioners from BARN should provide the leadership. We both thought Cheryl was the ideal person to do this. When Diane asked Cheryl if she would be willing to take this role (September 11, 1998), Cheryl asked me if I thought she could handle it (again I had no doubt about her capacity and she did) and I said, "I couldn't think of anyone more capable or appropriate." I believe that teachers learn best from their peers. She replied that she was encouraged by our confidence in her and agreed to do it.

During the 1998-99 school year, Cheryl continued her research cycle into a second year refining the self-esteem-building strategies in her classrooms as part of her regular practice. She also formulated a new question: "How can I live my values more fully in my classroom as I support teachers to use action research to improve their teaching and student learning?" (Black, Nov 22, 1998). This second cycle, as I mentioned in Greg's story, is very important because the change to research-based professionalism then becomes more embedded in the practice.

As I moved out into my new role, I had two very competent people, Diane and Cheryl, to continue the work I had begun in Brant and I could focus my energies on an expanded portfolio and a new family of schools 21 while still maintaining my interest in the growth of action research in the Grand Erie District School Board. Part of my planning was that the action research movement in the district needed to have an identity that was separate from me and embodied in the world of classroom teachers and school administrators. My departure from the frontline leadership was well-timed for the future of the movement.

Cheryl and Jackie: Co-Researchers

In 1999, Cheryl and I worked every other Saturday morning from January to April in a combination of a six kilometre walk with her dog (appropriately named "Jazz") on the banks of the Grand River and on our joint research. Those days were consumed with dialogue and writing the International Conference on Teacher Research (ICTR) paper, my research and implementing and reviewing action research supports in the Grand Erie District School Board. The following excerpts from our ICTR paper, "Assessing Our Influence" (Black & Delong, 1999) describe the process.

Story of Grand Erie Action Research Networks

Taking the Reins

Cheryl conducted an interest/needs survey about Action Research in the board in November. She found that there was interest in Action Research at a variety of levels of awareness. On Dec 1-3, 1998, Jack Whitehead, University of Bath, did awareness sessions in the three areas of the newly-amalgamated Grand Erie District School Board and at the School Leadership Program. As a structure to implement action research across the board, we decided to have three groups, one out of each support centre. So Brant Action Research Network (BARN) had existed for 4 years but Simcoe Action Research Team (SART) and Cayuga Action Research (CAR) were formed. We committed to follow-up sessions with each of the groups in January. Frustrations of working in the new board revolved around communication problems, unexpected changes in staff, labour unrest and perceived, and often unwelcome, changes in the way things were done. After what seemed like months of discussion with some other staff around what should be done, Jackie said, "Let's just do it." She encouraged Cheryl to take the reins and get on with booking the room and sending out the invitations.

...

In the Brant Action Research Network (BARN) session, Cheryl based the process on questions, both hers and those of the participants.

Cheryl: On one occasion in the session I saw a face shut down when I gave the answer to one of their questions. Instead of encouraging them to solve their own problems, I took over... I actually did a [good] job of allowing them to take over in Cayuga and realized I did what Jackie did -- ask questions so that they recognize what we were talking about --not tell, but just redirect or solidify thinking by asking questions. (transcript Jan 30/99 WT session).

What does sustained support look like?

From the beginning session in December, 1998 with Jack, the following supports have been provided:

1. Jack Whitehead conducted four sessions in the board to share his knowledge; copies of the Action Research Kit (Delong & Wideman, 1998a,b,c) and You and Your Action Research Project (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 1996) were provided to participants.
2. January BARN session dedicated to getting started and to writing and developing a question.
3. February BARN was a check-in session; Cheryl shared my perception of the January meeting and asked for validation of that perception; purpose was to set a model of the validation process, the writing process and including other voices in the writing. For those who missed the session, Cheryl sent out the paper with a description of the session and a request to come to the next session with some writing.
4. March BARN was another check-in with the expectation that they would bring some writing to the session; they read and responded to each other's work making comments on the writing; Cheryl referred to the phenomenological nod (Van Manen, 1990 p. 27) of recognition in the session. April will be a release time (out of system budgets) meeting with Jack Whitehead in which the teacher researchers will have the opportunity to dialogue with Jack.
5. Both CAR and SART have continued their meetings each month and the system budget has paid for dinner for the meetings.
6. Jackie purchased the Fall issue of Orbit (Vol.29, No. 3, 1998) for the three Action Research groups.
7. Cheryl and Peter Rasokas as editors will ask for submissions for a Grand Erie Action Research Book (that book came to fruition on December 6, 2001 at OERC with the help of Diane, Cheryl, James (Delong, 2001b) 22 as well as for the November issue of OAR (Ontario Action Researcher-Jackie and Ron Wideman editors). www.unipissing.ca/oar
8. Jackie's two groups- Covey AR Group and the Simcoe Office group- meet once a month and follow similar processes.
9. Two teachers and two principals were sponsored to attend ICTR and ten staff to the Act Reflect Revise conference out of system budgets.
10. The School Leadership Pro