LEADERSHIP PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIORS OF URBAN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND SPORT COACHES By Christel Rocha-Beverly A DISSERTATION Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements Submitted to for the degree of Kinesiology – Doctor of Philosophy 2019 LEADERSHIP PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIORS OF URBAN HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND SPORT COACHES ABSTRACT By Christel Rocha-Beverly Throughout the sport and exercise psychology literature, one topic that has been given increased attention is the leadership of athletes. Prior work has focused on the coach as a primary source of leadership for athletes and how that leadership can affect various student- athlete outcomes (Coleman, 1961; Gould, Chung Smith, & White, 2006; Smoll & Smith, 1989, 2006). These investigations have provided a wealth of information regarding coaches’ influence over athletes in a number of different domains, such as motivation (Eccles,1996; Jowett, 2008; MacLean, 2012; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003), persistence (Calvo et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and performance (Gearity & Murray, 2011; Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010). Lacking the same depth of examination is the relationship between coaches and other educational leaders in an athlete’s life that would provide much needed insight into their performance in an academic setting. More specifically, there is almost no research examining the relationships between coaches and teachers as they “co-lead” student-athletes. Given that teachers have been identified as one of the prime drivers of student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997) and coaches have been identified as one of the critical influences on student behavior (Smith, Smoll & Cummings, 2009) the lack of empirical evidence for the leadership dyad of teacher-coach on student-athlete outcomes is unfortunate. Seizing the opportunity to advance our understanding of the relationship dynamics and ecology of leaders in the inner-city high schools (Khalifa, 2012) will provide a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of the environment being established for Minority student-athletes. If educators (teachers and coaches) are similarly connected by the common goal of producing a successful student-athlete, a careful examination of their relationships is clearly in order. In other words, if we can begin to understand what the leaders think about each other— which is undoubtedly related to the way they treat each other—then we start to gain further insight into the relational ecology within which the minority student-athlete flourishes or flounders (Khalifa, Dunbar, & Douglas, 2013). Therefore, the overarching goal of my dissertation work is to address this gap in the literature by investigating the mutual perceptions of and behaviors between teachers and coaches as a precursor to understanding minority student- athlete outcomes in inner-city environments. Copyright by CHRISTEL ROCHA-BEVERLY 2019 I humbly acknowledge that I am because God is. I honor my Rocha and Bellgowan ancestors for ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the sacrifices they have made. I praise my parents, Lolly Rocha and Santiago Rocha, for their love and support. I thank my husband, Dr. Bryan Beverly, for his limitless understanding, belief, and love. I acknowledge the sacrifices that my daughters, Isabella and Simone Beverly, have made so that their mommy could finish school. I praise my other parents, Anne Diamond and Walker Beverly, IV, for their encouragement and help. I acknowledge the efforts of my committee members, Dr. Karl Erickson, Dr. Dan Gould, and Dr.Sonja Gunnings. I shout-out my siblings, LeeAnna Zepernick, James Rocha, Matthew Rocha, Margarita Rocha, and Frank Rocha for their own unique contributions to my journey. I thank the following people for any sacrifice made to help me succeed: Tracy Lynn Jackson, Esq., Tshepang Tshube, Dali Martinez, Jodi Potter, Marlene Green, Ashley Shields, Tayo Moss, Clay Braggs, Kri Burkander, Theresa Zamora, Kelli , Stephanie Boone, The Gratz Family, The Grill Family, The Alston Family, Alissa Guarino, Noel Santiago, The Davis Family, Coach Fisher, Coach Murph, Paul and MaryEllen Cook, Mike Wenzel, The Torgeson Family, The Creamer Family, The Venno Family, Sam Davis, Barbara Schneider, Ralph Uldaneta. I credit the following people for sustaining my writing stamina and creative flow: Kendrick Lamar, Michael Archer, Beyonce Carter Knowles, Shawn Carter, Andre Benjamin, Antwan Patton, James Yancy, Talib Kweli Greene, Lonnie Lynn, Lauryn Hill, Kirk Franklin, Fred Hammond, Donald Glover, and Eric Thomas. And to Dr. Deb Feltz, for sticking with me all these years--muchas gracias mi hermana. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Nature of the Problem ................................................................................................................. 1 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 4 Research Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 7 Research Questions and Approach ............................................................................................. 7 Overview of methodological approach.. ......................................................................................... 7 Importance of the study. ................................................................................................................. 8 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................... 8 AYP......................................................................................................................................... 8 Black ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Coach ...................................................................................................................................... 9 High academic performance ................................................................................................... 9 Low academic performance .................................................................................................... 9 White ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Delimitations ............................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 11 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 11 Understanding Urban Spaces in the United States ................................................................... 11 Redlining. .............................................................................................................................. 12 Discrimination in the workplace. .......................................................................................... 13 Understanding Urban Education in the United States .............................................................. 14 Black male students .............................................................................................................. 15 Black male high school student-athletes (BMSA) ................................................................ 16 Understanding High School Sports in the U.S.......................................................................... 21 History of high school sport in the early 20th century. ......................................................... 21 History of high school sport in the mid-20th century. .......................................................... 22 Understanding Leadership ........................................................................................................ 24 Educational leadership in high school. ................................................................................. 25 Instructional leadership ......................................................................................................... 25 Transformational leadership ................................................................................................. 28 Shared leadership .............................................................................................................. 30 Shared instructional leadership ......................................................................................... 31 Teacher leadership ................................................................................................................ 32 Sport leadership .................................................................................................................... 33 Trait leadership in sport ........................................................................................................ 33 Behavioral leadership in sport .............................................................................................. 35 Multidimensional sport leadership ........................................................................................ 37 Transformational leadership in sport. ............................................................................... 39 v Missing links in sport leadership. ..................................................................................... 40 Understanding the Evolution of Leadership in Sport and School............................................. 41 Distributed leadership in education and sport ....................................................................... 42 Distributed leadership research ............................................................................................. 44 Moving beyond the ‘hero’ myth in distributed leadership .................................................... 46 Distributed leadership as a source of empowerment for marginalized leaders. ................... 47 Inclusion and fluidity in distributed leadership .................................................................... 49 Issues in distributed leadership ............................................................................................. 51 Distributed leadership conclusion ......................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 56 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 56 Research Design........................................................................................................................ 56 Rationale for qualitative research design .............................................................................. 56 Developing context and understanding ................................................................................. 58 Epistemology ........................................................................................................................ 58 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 59 Research site/location ........................................................................................................... 59 Participant selection. ............................................................................................................. 60 Instruments/Interview protocol. ............................................................................................ 61 Data collection. ..................................................................................................................... 62 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 62 Data transcription. ................................................................................................................. 62 Data coding ........................................................................................................................... 62 Establish saturation ............................................................................................................... 63 Maintenance of audit and log trails ....................................................................................... 64 Researcher reflexivity/positionality ...................................................................................... 64 Positionality in critical research ........................................................................................ 66 My positionality ................................................................................................................ 67 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 69 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 69 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 69 Case 1: High School 1.............................................................................................................. 70 Ideographic profiles. ............................................................................................................. 70 School. .............................................................................................................................. 70 Teacher profile: LEBERMAN .......................................................................................... 70 General background ...................................................................................................... 70 Leadership philosophy. ................................................................................................. 70 Leadership perceptions of self. ..................................................................................... 70 Leadership perceptions of sport coaches. ..................................................................... 71 Reflections on this interview ............................................................................................ 72 Coach profile: STABLER. .................................................................................................... 73 General background. ......................................................................................................... 73 Leadership philosophy. ..................................................................................................... 73 Leadership perceptions of self. ......................................................................................... 73 vi Leadership perceptions of coaches. .................................................................................. 75 Reflections on this interview. ........................................................................................... 77 Content analysis. ................................................................................................................... 77 Within-case analysis, Case 1: Dr. Leberman and Coach Stabler dyad ............................. 77 Case 2: High School 2.............................................................................................................. 81 Ideographic profiles. ............................................................................................................. 81 School ............................................................................................................................... 81 Teacher profile: YBOTO. ................................................................................................. 81 General background. ......................................................................................................... 81 Leadership philosophy .................................................................................................. 81 Leadership perceptions of self. ..................................................................................... 82 Leadership perceptions of coaches. .............................................................................. 82 Reflections on this interview. ........................................................................................... 83 Coach profile: SUGER. ........................................................................................................ 84 General background. ......................................................................................................... 84 Leadership philosophy. ..................................................................................................... 84 Leadership perceptions of self. ......................................................................................... 84 Leadership perceptions of teachers. .................................................................................. 86 Reflections on this interview. ........................................................................................... 88 Content analysis. ................................................................................................................... 88 Within-case analysis, Case 2: Mr. Yboto and Coach Suger dyad. ................................... 88 Case 3: High School 3.............................................................................................................. 91 School. .............................................................................................................................. 91 Teacher profile: FALDER. ................................................................................................... 91 General background. ......................................................................................................... 91 Leadership philosophy .................................................................................................. 91 Leadership perceptions of self. ..................................................................................... 92 Leadership perceptions of coaches. .............................................................................. 93 Reflections on this interview. ........................................................................................... 94 Coach profile: XAVIER. ...................................................................................................... 94 General background. ......................................................................................................... 94 Leadership philosophy. ..................................................................................................... 95 Leadership perceptions of self. ......................................................................................... 95 Leadership perceptions of teachers. .................................................................................. 97 Content analysis. ................................................................................................................... 99 Case 3: Mrs. Falder and Coach Xavier dyad. ................................................................... 99 Reflections on this interview. ......................................................................................... 101 Cross-Case Analysis ............................................................................................................... 102 Cross-case 1: The teachers .................................................................................................. 103 Presence .......................................................................................................................... 103 Power .............................................................................................................................. 104 Communication ............................................................................................................... 104 Cross-case 2: The coaches .................................................................................................. 106 Relationships ................................................................................................................... 106 Commitment ................................................................................................................... 107 Hierarchical Analysis .............................................................................................................. 109 vii Common characteristics across teachers and coaches ........................................................ 109 Caring. ............................................................................................................................. 109 Control ............................................................................................................................ 110 Communication ............................................................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................... 114 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 114 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 114 Summary of Study .................................................................................................................. 114 Major Findings ........................................................................................................................ 115 Finding 1: Care. .................................................................................................................. 115 Finding 2: Control ............................................................................................................... 115 Finding 3: Communication ................................................................................................. 116 Considerations For a New Leadership Model ........................................................................ 117 Key Theoretical Implications .................................................................................................. 117 Key Practical Implications ...................................................................................................... 119 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 121 Future Directions .................................................................................................................... 121 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 123 APPENDIX A: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL ............................................................. 124 APPENDIX B: HUMAN SUBJECTS CONSENT FORM ................................................... 125 APPENDIX C: DISTRICT RESEARCH REQUEST APPROVAL ..................................... 127 APPENDIX D: TEACHERS INITIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................. 128 APPENDIX E: TEACHERS FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................. 129 APPENDIX F: COACHES TENTATIVE INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................ 131 APPENDIX G: COACHES FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE .................................................. 133 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 135 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sampling description ...................................................................................................... 61 Table 2: Sampling results.............................................................................................................. 61 Table 3: Case Study 1, Within-case analysis ................................................................................ 79 Table 4: Case Study 2, Within-case analysis ................................................................................ 89 Table 5: Case Study 2, Within-case analysis .............................................................................. 101 Table 6: Summary of Cross-case profiles—Teachers ................................................................ 105 Table 7: Summary of Cross-case profiles—Coaches ................................................................. 108 ix Nature of the Problem CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Coaches and teachers at the high school level have an obligation to prepare Black, Male, high school Student-Athletes (BMSA) for success at postsecondary institutions where they can secure a future regardless of sport. “The socialization of Blacks into sports such as football and basketball can also mean a one-track pursuit of success at a critical period in teenagers’ lives. While education provides a much more realistic means to achievement, it is often abandoned, or at least minimized” (Beamon & Messer, 2014, p. 37). This research seeks to understand how the teachers and coaches of academically underperforming Black, male, high school student athletes influence that socialization process by first understanding how teachers and coaches influence and interact with each other. In other words, what type of environment are these educational leaders creating within which their Black, male, student-athletes are being asked to learn? Understanding Minority student-athlete outcomes in the inner-city must include those individuals responsible for their preparation to succeed—their leaders. There is a perceived antagonistic relationship between academic and athletic leaders in the life of Minority student- athletes (Landsman & Lewis, 2006). Introduce identity foreclosure here Hobneck, Mudge and Turchi (2003) conducted a study in a southern Illinois community college that examined a program to improve student-athlete retention and academic success. Results indicated that although student-athletes perceived themselves as successful students and athletes, teachers perceived them to be primarily concerned with athletics and lacking the academic skills necessary to graduate. Unfortunately, many teachers’ beliefs regarding student- athletes and sport participation are rooted in personal and collective professional experiences 1 where sport has usurped academic achievement in the name of athletic excellence. Subsequently, BMSAs may experience identity foreclosure as they struggle to identify themselves as students, and instead make a premature but firm commitment to solely define themselves as athletes (Petipas, 1978). In a monograph to the National Education Association, Lapchick (1989) detailed how a sociology teacher in a Texas high school was pressured by the football coach and the principal to keep a particular star athlete academically eligible to play. This teacher acquiesced for the first semester but refused to continue passing the student for second semester. She filed a whistleblower’s lawsuit and received a favorable judgment in court with punitive damages awarded. This situation is not an anomaly and teachers across the country experience these types of pressures to assign passing grades to ineligible student-athletes. Their resulting belief that athletic leaders only care about the ‘athletic’ identity of the individual—without regard to behavioral or academic progress (Wyatt, 1999) is not without merit. School teachers, perhaps resenting this focus on athletics, might choose to ignore the “athlete” identity of the BMSA and only focus on the academic requirements or just write that student-athlete off entirely. Unfortunately, the singular focus on one part of a Black, male student-athlete’s identity by different leaders misses a great opportunity for unique collaboration between them and encourages identity foreclosure (Petipas, 1978). “The fact that they are teenagers and young adults with two full-time pursuits—as both students and athletes—should tell us that we need to provide them with quality resources that other students might not need” (Turner, 1998). If both identities of BMSAs aren’t acknowledged and respected, it almost forces the student to choose between them. 2 BMSAs across the United States have provided a large majority of players for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s basketball and football programs since the 1980s (Lapchick & Matthews, 1999). NCAA schools are making millions of dollars from TV contracts on basketball and football programs, and most of that money is being generated by great Black athletes͟ (Rhoden, 2006). In other words, BMSAs are extremely valuable as primary labor sources to the highly profitable collegiate sector of athletic entertainment in the United States. However, despite their financial significance to one of the largest commercial entities in the US sport, BMSAs have the worst grades and the lowest test scores of all high school student- athletes in the country (Norwood, 2008, p. 27). Who is accountable for their academic success and why have there been such failures up to this point? It is conspicuously unclear why these same high school student-athletes are having eligibility issues and hotly debated who should be held responsible for their academic success. If there is “considerable confusion regarding why being Black and male causes this segment of the population to stand out in the most negative and alarming ways in school” (Noguera, 2003, p. 433), then research to address the leadership of a sub-population of Black male student-athletes is certainly warranted. Across several decades of research, there has been an increasing interest in utilizing coaches’ leadership practices to gain insight into athlete behavior (Jowett, 2009; Jowett & Chaundy, 2004). Likewise, there has been a similar interest in educational research to understand student outcomes via the leadership of teachers (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Research has shown compelling evidence that teachers are one of the primary drivers of student achievement (Brophy, 1984; Darling-Hammond, 1999;) and coaches are one of the crucial influences on athlete behavior (Turman & Schrodt, 2004). This ecological approach to understanding 3 leadership stems from research suggesting that student or athlete outcomes are often influenced by those adults most invested in their success (Hebert & Reiss, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Currently, there is no research examining sport coaches and teachers as they “co-lead” Black, male student-athletes using a distributed leadership framework. Given that teachers have been identified as one of the prime drivers of student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997) and coaches have been identified as one of the critical influences on student behavior (Smith, Smoll & Cummings, 2009) the lack of empirical evidence for the leadership dyad of teacher- coach on student-athlete outcomes is unfortunate. Considering the potential for coaches and teachers to improve student-athlete grades and behavior with increased communication/interaction (much like a child who has two parents on the same page of child rearing and discipline), further investigation of these student-athlete leaders is needed to better understand the environments (on and off the court) within which student-athletes must perform. In other words, if scholars of education and sport can begin to understand what the leaders of BMSAs think about each other—which is undoubtedly related to the way they communicate/interact with each other—then they start to gain further insight into the relational ecology within which the BMSA flourishes or flounders (Khalifa, Dunbar, & Douglas, 2013). Theoretical Framework Theory doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it is created through action and interaction (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), and should therefore seek to improve as much as it does to explain. But finding the place of theory in the applied field of sport psychology research can be difficult because academia is slow to acknowledge empirical work without it (Peshkin, 1993) and practitioners are inversely hesitant to embrace theory as applicable in the ‘real world’ of sport. Creating bridges of communication between those who investigate critical underpinnings of knowledge and those 4 who use it allows each one to travel into the other’s mind and “…become able to perceive reality as that person does” (Anfara, 2006, p. xiv). This study aims to use a theoretical model of distributed leadership to understand the reality that teachers and coaches of BMSAs experience in their daily lives. The shared or “distributed” model (Spillane, Halverson &Diamond, 2001) might be the most effective model for understanding leadership in urban high schools. Shared leadership develops capacity amongst all members of the school community and is clear that the roles and actions of adults working with students should reflect broad involvement, collaboration, and collective responsibility (Lambert, 2002). In a shared leadership model, teachers and sport coaches would be given the same credibility as any school administrators and ensuing opportunities to impact student-athlete outcomes would be diversified. Distributed leadership is a multi-pronged process that eschews traditional understandings of influence where one, charismatic leader (House, 1976) shoulders the burden of power to improve test scores or points scored. Rather, distributed leadership identifies a more holistic, ecological approach that acknowledges multiple sources of influence in the life of Black, male, high school student-athletes. Distributed leadership is “more about leadership, and less about leaders” (Mascall, 2007, p. 49), where effective influence is a collective action. Spillane (2008) highlighted the notion of distributed leadership as collective action by describing it as “a web of leadership activities and interactions stretched across people and situations” (p. 37). Peter Gronn similarly identified distributed leadership as an “emergent property of a group or a network of interacting individuals” (p. 226). It is this collective action between multiple players within a given organization that true change and innovation is realized. 5 Looking at the behavior and interactions of teachers and sport coaches through the lens of a distributed leadership perspective informs researchers’ understanding of BMSA academic achievement in a more holistic manner. Socializing agents that influence the lives of BMSAs, such as sport coaches, have an important role to play in the academic achievement of student- athletes. The coach should be viewed as a fiduciary who is supposed to act with the student’s best educational interest in mind. This is particularly true given the tremendous influence coaches normally have over their players (Norwood, 2008). Using a distributed lens, sport coaches and teachers can be considered salient contributors to the improvement and development of BMSAs and given their due as viable leaders within the school community. Subsequently, their partnerships with each other must be further examined because “understanding how leadership actually gets done in schools is imperative if research is to generate usable knowledge for school leaders” (Spillane, 2006, p. 7). If future work seeks to inform research and practice of inner-city high school leadership for student-athletes, then current research should first attend to what exists in urban learning contexts right now. It is clear that if teachers and coaches are connected by the common goal of producing a successful student-athlete, research to carefully examine their leadership behaviors is in order. Spillane (2006) recognized that “the continued systematic application of the distributed framework to the study of leadership will lead to the identification of patterns in how leadership is distributed in schools” (p. 95). This research seeks to extend that application by using a liberal interpretation of the framework—something that is not currently being done in distributed leadership literature. 6 Research Purpose The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the relational leadership ecology co- created by teachers and coaches in urban high schools from a distributed leadership perspective. Using a qualitative approach, the study sought to examine the leadership perceptions and behaviors of high-school teachers and sport coaches in urban high school contexts. The use of qualitative inquiry to gain a deeper understanding of the academic and social ecology within which student-athletes are being expected to successfully navigate is crucial to move forward the existing literature of and leadership practices toward improving outcomes for inner-city, at-risk student-athletes. Research Questions and Approach 1) How do teachers and coaches perceive themselves and each other with respect to their leadership roles in high school Black, male student-athlete development? 2) How do these perceptions influence the behaviors of teachers and coaches in the high school environment? Overview of methodological approach. Secondary analysis (Heaton, 2008) is a methodological technique involving the use of “pre-existing qualitative data derived from previous research studies” (p. 34). This dissertation is a secondary analysis of a larger (primary) qualitative dataset previously collected by the researcher. The primary dataset was collected from three high schools from the same urban district with the aim of exploring leadership in those high school contexts. This particular district was chosen because of its high minority populations, inner-city location, academic underperformance and athletic overachievement. The primary dataset consists of 27 participants: 9 teachers, 9 coaches, and 9 teacher-coaches (three of each from the three high schools). 7 A secondary analysis of this data--using purposeful sampling of teachers and coaches involved with Black, male football and basketball student-athletes--will be considered supplementary to the primary goal of exploring urban leadership in high school contexts. One coach and one teacher from each high school will comprise the secondary subsample for a total of six participants. Importance of the study. This study holds importance in both the academic and athletic domains of urban education because it examines the infrastructure surrounding student learning and how those contexts influence subsequent outcomes. Researchers and practitioners will find this study useful to inform further inquiry into urban leadership as well as potential ideas for the administration of improved school staff collaboration. This study has practical significance for school administrators who need to understand the educational and strategic mindsets of their formal and informal leaders before any large-scale school reforms are undertaken. This research also attends to a very large gap in the world of interscholastic, urban sports literature that has largely omitted the contextual leadership environment within which urban high school student-athletes are expected to succeed and how that environment influences a multitude of other highly studied variables, i.e., motivation, attributions. Definition of Terms AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) This refers to a school that meets or exceeds state accountability standards based on assessment participation, achievement/proficiency, graduation rate, and attendance. Black (used interchangeably with African-American). In this study, Black refers to the cultural and racial characteristics of any individual or people of African descent. 8 Coach. In this study, coach refers to the Black, male football and basketball coaches hired to work with football and basketball student athletes at their respective schools, none of which work in the schools they coach at. High academic performance (of a school or district). In this study, this phrase refers to the schools or districts recognized annually as those that are among the highest achieving and/or highest improving statewide on standardized assessments. Low academic performance (of school or district) or High Priority Schools. In this study, this phrase refers to the limited level of proficiency of students on standardized assessment. The school or district meets the following conditions: • Must be located in Michigan • Ranked in the bottom five percent of schools on the state’s Top-to-Bottom list according to student achievement on the state’s assessment (MDE, 2012, p. 10). White. In this study, White refers to the cultural and racial characteristics of Caucasians; it also refers to the invisible power and privileges afforded to those individuals (Fletcher, 2014). Delimitations This study focused specifically on teachers and coaches of BMSAs. Specifically focusing on student-athletes, who are Black and male, when there is the larger issue of underperforming Minority students in general may seem short-sighted. However, given that there are over 7 million high school student-athletes in the U.S.A., a disproportionate number of Black males whom are underperforming in inner-city high schools (Seung, 2013), this seemed an important place to start. All participants in the study were volunteers who were able to withdraw from the study at any time. Furthermore, the participants who completed the study may not be representative of the population of teachers and coaches across the country. 9 Conclusion With the advent of the 21st millennium, scholars have addressed the need for rethinking educational and social paradigms: examining past practices, successes and failures while looking toward improving the future. This natural juncture in time seems appropriate to revisit the notion of sport in educational settings—what it means to those formal and informal educational leaders who hold varying influence in student-athlete outcomes and how their perceptions of academic leadership affect secondary structures and performance. This study holds importance in both the academic and athletic domains of urban education because it examines the infrastructure surrounding student learning and how those contexts inform subsequent outcomes. Researchers and practitioners will find this study useful to inform further inquiry into urban leadership as well as potential ideas for the administration of improved school staff collaboration. 10 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The aim of this study was to understand how teachers and coaches of Black, male, high school student athletes (BMASs) conceive themselves as leaders in urban high schools. Couched in the larger achievement gap that persists into the 21st century for Black male students (as measured by standardized test scores and GPA (Schott Report, 2010)), this inquiry identifies BMSAs as a particularly important sub-group of those students whose underachievement in the classroom may have far deeper meaning and graver consequences for US communities and economies. A closer look at how leadership within these schools is defined, enacted, and maintained within the surrounding school ecology is necessary to contextualize BMSA academic underperformance. In order to understand this nested phenomenon of BMSA educational marginalization, it is necessary to have some historical background about American inner cities, its high-schools and sports, and the leadership therein. This chapter begins with an historical perspective of American inner cities. Next, an overview of American Sport and the obstacles of Black school- aged athletes is provided. The third major section provides a review of different types of leadership, including educational and sport leadership, and its evolution in schools and sport. The chapter concludes with an overview and critique of distributive leadership, a general model that identifies the various leadership contributions of different individuals within an environment, and its use for studying the leadership ecology of BMSAs. Understanding Urban Spaces in the United States Understanding how American ghettos were built not only creates a conversation that is salient to current society—it is the structural foundation upon which most major US cities today 11 were built. To understand the people, one must first understand the place. As this research is seeking to: (1) understand how educational leaders in urban high schools interact with each other; and, (2) how their relationships and interactions might affect the outcomes of BMSAs, it is important to understand the context of employment for the former and the stark realities of that context for the latter. This section of the literature review purports to do both in a highly summarized account. Redlining. The contemporary US ghetto is largely a product of historical, residential segregation in many US city centers proceeding the Great Depression of the 1920s (Sugrue, 2005). During this time, citizens were subject to massive lay-offs in the industrial sector, leaving many citizens to face economic hardships, including home loan defaults. President Roosevelt’s response to this epidemic was to establish the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC), which efficiently distributed available governmental funds to homeowners. (Greer, 2013). However, with the creation of HOLC, and its parent organization, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), a process of residential segregation better known as “redlining” was established. (Hillier, 2005) “Redlining” was the legalized, racial segregation of urban cities across the United States following the Great Depression. This process created Residential Security Maps (Hillier, 2005) in four color categories to identify urban neighborhoods according to racial composition, housing stock value, and the overall likelihood for improvement over time (Greer, 2013). Green zones were noted to be the safest investment of federal dollars, followed by blue and yellow zones, with decreasing safety. (Hillier, 2005). The red zones were noted as hazardous, and did not have equal access to federal dollars that the other color zones did. The “redlining” of urban cities 12 across the United States severely limited housing options for many Black and Brown people after the Great Depression. The residential isolation of minorities in urban centers still persists today; the impetus of this isolation can be directly tied to historical federal policies that steered resources away from minority citizens and helped create the contemporary American ghetto. Kenneth Jackson, in his 1985 text Crabgrass Frontier, argued that HOLC was the reason residential segregation still exists in today’s urban communities. Furthermore, the legalized policy of racial segregation or “redlining” led to the devaluing of homes and substantial decreases in property tax revenue that deprived inner-city public schools of the necessary funding to provide quality education to its most vulnerable but valuable citizens—the youth. (Greer, 2013). Similarly, Sugrue (1996) wrote a book entitled “The Origins of the Urban Crisis” in which he argued that unequal housing opportunities in the early and mid 20th Century played a critical role in the persisting poverty and segregation that haunted urban ghettos. However, Sugrue (1996) also detailed a comprehensive inventory of other social and economic ills, such as discriminatory practices in the workplace, that also contributed to the breakdown of America’s center cities and seeped into its schools. Discrimination in the workplace. In mid-20th century America, Ford Motor Company had provided thousands of jobs to Black workers, and the opportunities for employment in Detroit, both inside and out of the auto industry, were plentiful (Sugrue, 1996). Paradoxically, Ford was using unfair hiring practices to keep Blacks in the most dangerous and low-paying positions. Furthermore, Ford leadership refused to support the Michigan Fair Employment Practices (FEP) campaign, an initiative that sought to outlaw discrimination on the basis of race (Sugrue, 1996). 13 Union stewards were downplaying discrimination in the workplace and legislation to remedy these issues were neither translated effectively nor enforced consistently in actual factories (Sugrue, 1996). So, while inner-cities like Detroit did offer employment, it was rife with risk and racism—both of which negatively impacted their communities. It is the actual economic and political racism evidenced in places like Detroit that poisoned many of America’s urban centers and left a legacy of inequality for generations to come. This legacy of poverty and racism within major US cities still persists today. Unfortunately, that shameful inheritance has also seeped into the schools and continues to affect young Minority students lives across the country (Kozol, 1991, 2005). Poverty is one of the strongest predictors of academic performance in inner-city schools due to the adverse and persistent circumstances of such poverty that these children cannot always overcome (Yeaky and Bennett, 1990). These same African American children that live in poverty typically drop below grade level in elementary school and continue to fall further behind until, at age sixteen, roughly 35 percent are below their grade level (Baratz, 1986). Furthermore, Cole (1983) found that where inner-city school populations reach 75 percent African American, the kids’ achievement levels are usually two or more years behind the national average. Understanding Urban Education in the United States Schools in urban districts with high minority populations tend to lack the resources and support needed to prepare these students to compete for opportunities within the American economy (Singer & May, 2010). Current research in urban education indicates that minority students living in inner-cities have greater challenges to overcome than their suburban and rural counterparts. African American and Hispanic children are three times more likely than Whites 14 to attend an impoverished urban school and they have lower achievement scores than their suburban counterparts (Orfield & Lee, 2005). Darling-Hammond (2010) noted that the conditions under which inner-city kids are being forced to learn and grow have not notably changed or improved in over 30 years. Beverly and Potter (2015, in progress) argue that despite urban educators’ and policymakers’ many efforts to resolve these educational shortcomings, none have proved sustainable or significant. Apparently, the “established pattern to deal with urban problems” had no discernible effect across decades of reform (Hirsch, 1983). Whatever policy is implemented, a consistent gap remains between the intention and implementation of change. Unfortunately, it is in the middle of this gap where minority students continue to flounder in 21st Century American urban school districts. Black male students. A specific concern being addressed by scholars, educators, and politicians alike is the dismal underachievement of Black males in the US. Over the last 25 years, the social, education and economic outcomes for Black males have been more systematically devastating than the outcomes for any other racial or ethnic group or gender. Black males have consistently low educational attainment levels, are more chronically unemployed and underemployed, are less healthy and have access to fewer health care resources, die much younger, and are many times more likely to be sent to jail for periods significantly longer than males of other racial ethnic groups. On average, Black males are more likely to attend the most segregated and least resourced public schools. (Schott Report, in Norwood, 2008) Research indicates that urban Black male students are most significantly at risk for academic underachievement and this trend has persisted over decades (Schott Report, 2010) . 15 Flennaugh (2011) agreed with Beach, Lundell, and Jung (2002) and reported that many efforts to address the barriers that impeded achievement for Black males have still fallen short in stemming the academic misery for three notable reasons. Simply put, these reasons involve: (1) a lack of focused scholarship on the psychological component of Black male educational experience; (2) the lack of scholarly consideration for the intercontextual experience of Black male students; and, (3) existing work that takes a deficit perspective on Black male experiences in education. (Flennaugh, 2011). Taking a deeper look into the literature reveals that Black males from inner-city high schools have been studied prodigiously and reform efforts to address the racial achievement gap have been approached from many differed angles: single gender classrooms (Hubbard & Datnow, 2005), smaller classrooms (Borland et. Al, 2010), multicultural pedagogy (Teel & Obidah, 2008), and increased funding--all of which failed to produce sustained, improved outcomes for this particularly vulnerable group. Educator strategies that have been useful but are not considered in formal education or sport research, such as the use of sport by teachers and coaches in cities across America to maintain the academic eligibility of Black male student- athletes. Black male high school student-athletes (BMSA) . A specific subgroup of Black males--inner-city high school student-athletes--are particularly at risk for academic underachievement because US culture has become so “…accustomed to excusing these students from academic rigor that doing so simply does not spark a sense of outrage or any notion that we are doing something wrong when it comes to our expectations of these student-athletes” (Norwood, 2012, p. 5). Although many NCAA Division I colleges recruit young Black males from economically troubled, urban backgrounds, providing a vehicle to access a college 16 education (Norwood, 2012), this does not necessarily translate into successful matriculation to or graduation from the university. Unfortunately, “too many inner-city schools are underfunded and cannot deliver the resources that would level the academic playing field. This makes it far more difficult for student-athletes (and students in general) to be successful” and competitive in the college admission process (Lapchick, 2008). Since the United States of America is currently a credential-crazed society, social, financial, and cultural advancement are viewed as the results of staying in school and graduating from college with a useful degree. Therefore, it stands to reason that if BMSAs are eschewing school in favor of sports, or if their educational resources are limited, their future as productive, successful community members is jeopardized. The Black school-aged athlete from urban America must deal with more educational obstacles than the average student at his school. In some cases, he has adults in his life who do not behave like adults when it comes to his skills in sports and his status in the community. Some of these adults evolve into fans, who cheer him on, who give him far more leeway in the classroom than they would an ordinary student. He is deemed ‘special’ and therefore exempt from certain rules (Powell, 2007). Talent in potential athletes is often spied out quite early, for some as young as 8th grade. From the moment his skill becomes apparent, he is put on a different track to success, a superhighway of sorts, one that doesn’t rely on education rather relies on his brawn. Somehow the game becomes more important than education. Family, friends, other students, teachers, coaches and the parents all contribute to a mindset that values brawn over brains (Norwood, 2013) FFF Education is deprioritized for BMSAs as they become more successful. It is often the case that as the Black male athlete’s superior athletic skill begins to shine, he is not only praised, accepted, elevated and treated special, but he is encouraged to spend more and more time on the 17 basketball court and less and less time with his books. Education is really not the goal for many. Most BMSAs practice with one dream in mind: making it to the NBA (Norwood, 2008). Unfortunately, this plan to put sport ahead of school is rigged, with the loser usually being a Black, male student-athlete. The coach wins, the school wins, but the uneducated student loses. Meanwhile, high schools in ghettos across America continue to churn out a majority of Black, male basketball and football players who provide the human labor to generate billions of dollars in revenue for colleges and professional sports owners. In the current climate of sport-crazed America, multi-billion dollar industries such as the NCAA, NBA and NFL are being fueled by the small supply of academically eligible high school BMSAs. Society’s strong preoccupation with maintaining this popular source of entertainment, along with big business’ motivation to maintain the lucrative financial arrangement that sport commands, has created an unacceptable dynamic of educational marginalization for Black male student-athletes in high school. Bakker (2005) insisted that the public should be more concerned about the way high schools are operated, specifically regarding the lack of preparation and sub- par education for BMSAs, noting that it was obvious schools were letting these young men just ‘get by’ in their classes . Reiss (2008) reported that some colleges came under criticism for recruiting highly talented inner-city athletes, then leaving them to drown in the waters of collegiate academia. Guardians of the student’s academic welfare are steering the academically unprepared athlete through high school and into (and through) college with rewards of prestige and financial wealth to the school and maybe the financial success to the player. But no contingency is made for the very high odds that the student is unlikely to obtain that financial success. (Norwood, 2008). Inner city parents of BMSAs, understanding the realities facing their child: poverty, 18 crumbling schools, and poor academics, may believe that sport is the child’s only real ticket to success. These parents, wanting what every parent wants for their child, combine with teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act and coaches who need to win to keep their job, to form a perfect alliance of interest convergence (Derrick Bell, 1980). This convergence centers on athletic excellence under the coach’s tutelage and academic eligibility with the teacher, forces BMSAs to devalue education while defining success and worth in society by his physical performance and stamina on the basketball court (Norwood, 2013, p. 76). While much has been written over the years on the questionable academic ethics of coaches, professors and players at the college level, little is said of these identical problems at the high school level. Yet, there are some BMSAs entering college unable to read and thus are the most harmed when they are encouraged to eschew academics (Norwood, 2008). Furthermore, what about those student-athletes that have been entirely focused on the sports for the 4 years they have been in high school and are unable to attend a post-secondary institution? Many Black males’ predominant focus on athletics within the current sociopolitical and historical context of American society and its school systems raises concerns regarding whether or not some of them will have or acquire the skills and competencies that are necessary to compete in the economy and lead successful lives once their playing days have ended (Singer & May, 2010; 302). As the 2008 Schott Report noted, almost 40% of all states in the US do not graduate at least 50% of their Black male high school students. This disheartening statistic holds true for all of the major cities across the US—leaving urban communities to wonder who their educational leaders are and what they are doing to ameliorate this issue. Urban teachers, who once bore the brunt of coaching responsibilities for their high school athletic departments are forgoing their extracurricular duties in exhausted frustration (G.A.O. 12- 19 350), resulting in an even greater demand for non-teaching coaches in urban districts. This trend towards hiring athletic coaches that do not work in school building begs the question of educational leadership, responsibility and accountability to the school community from which they are typically absent. Furthermore, it illuminates the questionable purpose of sports in academic settings: if coaches are being hired from the larger community who are not economically or ideologically invested in the school, does the ultimate goal of improving their student outcomes get lost in box scores and demanding game schedules? What do the teachers think about these other so-called educators that command so much of their students’ time? This dissertation addresses these questions. There is a plethora of minority male student-athlete literature at the collegiate level pertaining to academic, non-cognitive, behavioral, and relational outcomes (Harper, 2016; Harris & Wood, 2013; Horton, 2015; Strayhorn & Johnson, 2014). Yet this research does not exist in a vacuum and could actually be contextualized by additional work at an earlier stage of the student-athlete’s career. It behooves researchers and practitioners alike to take a step back and consider the prior high school leadership culture from whence these players came—not only to ground researchers’ and policy makers’ understanding of minority student-athlete experience (what type of leadership shaped their experience and thinking during high school?) in their formative years, but also expand the sports leadership literature by considering sport coaches as leaders in an academic or behavioral context and expand the educational leadership by including sport coaches as another source of positive influence in the academic experience of Black male student-athletes. If the literature considers academic, non-cognitive, behavioral, and relational outcomes as measures of student success at the postsecondary level, than the decision to 20 operationalize BMSAs’ success in this study as measures of grades (GPA) and behavior (suspension rates) is supported. Understanding High School Sports in the U.S. Interscholastic sport is a powerful instrument of cultural and social influence in inner-city communities (Coleman, 1961; Hartmann, 2006). Research in high school sport has measured countless athletic and academic variables, but given little attention to the social and cultural power sport commands in urban contexts that James Coleman (1961) so clearly defined over 50 years ago, or how such power translates to instructional support or community accountability. Because sport is highly regarded in inner-city high schools and the surrounding community, its potential to moderate educators’ behavioral expectations and BMSAs’ accountability to those expectations has been curiously ignored in both theoretical research and practical reform. This research seeks to examine educational leaders’ behaviors towards their mutual BMSAs in the inner-city context as a first step towards understanding the larger ecology of learning within which BMSAs are failing to succeed. In this section, I provide some historical background on high school sport history first to provide context to the plight of the BMSA in the rest of the section. History of high school sport in the early 20th century. The controversial dynamic of interscholastic athletics is well documented. While the inherent value of physical activity has been traced back as far as Plato’s admiration for athletic intelligence (Burnett, 2001), the turn of the 20th century was a landmark for the growing importance of sport in educational settings. Collegiate contests were first sanctioned in the late 1800s and a majority of US high schools followed suit shortly thereafter (Sage, 1987). Physical education teachers, who were primarily responsible for coaching the teams, promoted educating the “whole child” and the significance of 21 how athletics supported this goal was emphasized (Burnett, 2001; American Council on Education, 1937). Ironically, Coakley (1994) argues that: The historical origins of the dumb jock stereotype can be traced to 500 B.C. when Greek athletes were criticized for the inordinate amount of time they spent in preparation for competition and for neglecting their intellectual development. Greek athletes were characterized by some philosophers of the period as useless and ignorant citizens with dull minds (Sailes, 1998). Sport was more than just a diversion for students; theorist John Dewey reasoned that if extracurricular activities are implemented as part of a regular school program, the whole pupil is engaged and the artificial gap between life and school is reduced (Dewey, 1913). Researcher William Orr (1905) contributed to this growing belief of sport significance by utilizing physical measurements of students (such as cardiovascular and strength variables) to defend his point. Even the popular social media of this time were disseminating the idea of athletics as a healthy alternative to deviant and destructive behaviors (Riis, 1911). Simply put, athletic participation was understood to be an important part of holistic education both as a vehicle for healthy living and for social development relevant to student-athletes’ external environment. Furthermore, sport as a homosocial environment within which white upper and middle- class males sharpened their competitive skills, sport became an important institution in which the superiority of hegemonic masculinity was supported and reproduced, while women and other (subordinated) men were marginalized (Cornell, 1987; in Sailes, 1998;) History of high school sport in the mid-20th century. Unfortunately, athletics in high schools would soon come under intense scrutiny for the increasing importance and priority it was commanding in secondary institutions. By mid-20th century, sentiments on high school athletics 22 had polarized and were subject to more negative scrutiny. Academic leaders predictably revolted against the increasing popularity of sport and lobbied to put athletics in their rightful place (Burnett, 2001). The curriculum was bifurcated into “the curriculum and the extra curriculum” (Rugg, 1936), which necessitated separate goals, ideologies, and leaders. Individuals who did not teach in the school, “non-teaching coaches” were now being hired to coach sports teams, which further detracted from student-athlete accountability and seamless leadership in schools. Sport was failing to sustain itself as an integrated, important co-curricular aspect in high school education. The infamous Coleman Report (1959), by noted scholar James Coleman, impacted this new trend for high school sports with the argument that student-athletes were playing a zero- sum game in which one aspect of their high school education (academics) was losing to the other (athletics). High school educators and administrators, eager to refocus efforts on academics, removed sport from the table of educative relevance by marginalizing its importance in schools and classrooms, thus relegating it to “extra” curricular status. Ironically, this marginalization of sport had disproportionately negative effects on underserved, minority high school populations, where the power and influence of sport in schools and communities was strongest (Hartman, 2003). Interestingly, since World War II, athletic participation at almost all levels of football and basketball in the United States have come to be dominated by black men (Sailes, 1998). Interscholastic sport in urban communities held greater meaning than just wins and losses, specifically for these two sports. It was a source of pride for the larger community, it was a vehicle for educational and social mobility for student-athletes, and it was a conduit for community gatherings. Sport held deep, meaningful import to many disenfranchised, inner-city 23 residents who may not have had much recourse or capital to create those benefits for themselves (Hartmann, 2003) Unfortunately, sport was also one of many convenient smokescreens for America’s academic ills while the structural segregation and educational discrimination of minority students in the ghetto continued to be ignored (Neckerman, 1994). Poor academic performance by Black students could easily be attributed to misplaced athletic priorities (Coleman, 1954); subsequently, decisions to deemphasize secondary sport seemed to be a logical solution for academic improvement. Dewey’s (1913) holistic model of co-curricular sport to improve educational outcomes was replaced and instead used as instrument of social control to provide support to White, female teachers who had no idea how to educate Minority students in urban schools. Understanding Leadership The general study of leadership has been approached from many perspectives. Some early leadership theories focused on personality traits (e.g., ‘Great Man’ theory, Carlyle, 1840); others have emphasized skills and behaviors (e.g., Fleishman, 1953; Katz, 1955; Lowin & Craig, 1968). Recognizing that leadership theory had failed to account for the different situations that leaders encounter that shape those traits and behaviors, some turned to situational leadership theory to explain adaptability of leaders in different situations. Subsequent models of leadership included interactional leadership (e.g., Fielder’s Contingency theory, 1964, 1967; Fielder & Garcia, 1987) that highlighted leader/situation interactions and transformational leadership, which focuses on the relationship between leader and members and how leaders change the organizational culture through such mechanisms as connecting members’ sense of collective identity of the organization and challenging them to take greater ownership for their work 24 (Burns, 1978). Regardless of perspective, researchers of sport and educational leaders should seek to understand how leaders work individually and together to meet the pluralistic needs of minority student-athletes. The leadership section of the literature review first examines educational leadership in urban contexts to provide appropriate support for teacher leadership. Then the review addresses sport leadership to highlight the importance of sport coaches in the lives of Black, male, student-athletes. Finally, the review considers distributed leadership as a paradigm for understanding the intersectional nature of leadership in the lives of Black male student- athletes and why this particular model can shed light on the racial achievement gap in a manner that both educational and sport leadership has thus far failed to consider. Educational leadership in high school. Leadership in high school settings was originally considered a managerial position that concerned itself with the daily maintenance of the building and administration of finances (Elmore, 2000). As American educational culture and research evolved, new paradigms of leadership were introduced that embraced the notion of shared instructional leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003), and transformational leadership (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Both of these reflected a growing need for alternative leaders in the schools that were able to better address needs of the student populations. The principal as the sole educational leader left the substantial talents of other staff in the building largely untapped (Lambert, 2002). Instructional leadership. The concept of instructional leadership was developed in 1980s with the hope of improving schools' capacities to enhance student learning. In this leadership model, school principals are at the center of school improvement and play the most substantial role in ensuring students receive instruction that complies with students’ needs and 25 schools' goals (Marks & Printy, 2003). The effort to link principals to classroom instruction is based on the notion that the involvement of the principal in the academic process might contribute to school improvement. Hallinger (2005) indicated that this leadership model has been widely adopted by leadership scholars not only in the U.S., but also by the principal leadership theorists and academics from all over the world. A considerable number of researchers have examined the correlation between instructional leadership and school characteristics such as school level, size, SES, principals’ features, and characteristics including gender, training and experience (Hallinger, 1985; Heck, 1984). Further attention focused on organizational factors such as mission, goals, and expectation (Cheng, 1994; Ogawa, 1995). There is also research that examines how instructional leadership affects student achievement (Hallinger, 2003). More recently, there is also a research trend regarding investigation of the influence of school leaders on improving the quality of classroom instruction (Marks & Printy, 2003). A great majority of early instructional leadership studies, especially those between 1980s- 1990s, focused mainly on a conceptual framework for instructional leadership. Over the last 10 years, however, studies of instructional leadership have directed specific attention toward discovering actual practices of principals executing functions of instructional leadership (Coldren & Spillane, 2007). Instructional leadership, as a theory, specifies the scope of school leaders' functions, such as developing a school vision, setting high standards and expectations for teachers and students, supervising teachers’ instructional practice and providing them with professional development opportunities, participating in the development of a curriculum aligned with the school’s instructional goals, monitoring the progression of student achievement, and creating a school 26 climate conducive to teaching and learning (Marks & Printy, 2003). Hallinger and Murphy (1985) categorized these functions into three sections: defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate. Defining the school mission includes determining goals on which the school operates and efforts to get other school community members to embrace these goals. Managing the instructional program encompasses both instructional and curricular activities such as assessment of instructional quality, curriculum design and student assessment. Lastly, promoting a positive learning climate refers to highs standards, teacher professional development and (instructional) improvement-based incentives, and protection of instructional time. Instructional leadership has emphasis on instruction and curriculum because it considers these mechanisms as prerequisite tools to enhance student achievement. Therefore, teachers, who deliver the instruction, are the central figures who presumably receive the most challenging pressure to improve classroom instruction. Taking teachers as the significant factor affecting learning in the classrooms, the functions of instructional principals are considerable. First, recruiting the “skillful teachers,” particularly those whose professional background and personal goals are consistent with those of the school, and making professional development opportunities available to them can arguably be labeled as a principal duty. Second, retaining already existing “good teachers” and providing them with further improvement opportunities, i.e. professional development, is another aspect of principal influence/action. In addition to this, improvement in the quality of teaching calls for principals to get involved in instructional activities such as supervising classroom teaching, monitoring progress of individual teachers and pinpoint professional needs of teachers (Rosenholtz, 1985). Furthermore, teachers should be supplied with sufficient assistance and resources necessary for creating optimum learning conditions for 27 students. To ensure teachers exert their ultimate capacity, instructional leaders should preclude any barrier that undermines teachers’ abilities to improve student achievement (Hallinger, 2005; Rosenholtz, 1985). It is important to note that in certain districts, implementing these instructional behaviors may be within the jurisdiction of a principal, and thus hinder his/her ability to effectively impart instructional leadership. Teacher unions, school boards, and district rules often ‘tie a principal’s hands’ and inhibit his/her ability to make crucial personnel, resource, and even building decisions. However, the further these models are proven effective, it would be the hope that principals could be empowered to make some decisions in these regards. Efforts to improve instructional effectiveness through instructional leadership consider principals as the leader of the school and particularly the expert on instruction. The responsibility of principals is to utilize their authority and expertise to make sure that students are receiving appropriate teaching. It puts school principals at the center of instructional improvement without specifying any significant role of other staff (Hallinger, 2005; Marks & Printy, 2003). This reality has received criticism from leadership scholars when principals’ interactions with teachers turn out to be more like a boss-worker or top-down relationship, which undermines the potential for teachers to develop a sense of ownership about school matters are directly dependent upon them. Thus, instructional leadership falls short of being considered transformational leadership. Transformational leadership. When the more hierarchical practices of instructional leadership fell short of the ideal and the obvious expertise of teachers couldn’t be ignored any longer, the need for alternative models of organizational leadership was evident to both researchers and practitioners (Cuban, 1984). It became clear that principals were not the only 28 effective, powerful leaders in the school building, and a new paradigm of transformational leadership (TFL) began to unfold. Bernard Bass (1988) defined transformational leadership in schools as the work of principles to convert teachers into educational leaders. Teachers were finally being recognized as powerful contributors to the overall school climate, curriculum, and achievement. Functioning in both leadership and instructional capacities, teachers could shape the goals and cultures of their schools while retaining their ties to the classroom. (Conley & Goldman, 1994). This was a turning point for research on student achievement; since the effects of school leadership (principals/administrators) on student outcomes were largely indirect (Leithwood et al., 2010), new practices and mindsets regarding how principals could develop skills most applicable to student learning were identified with teachers being at the crux of development. Having the teachers serve as a critical mediator between the principal and the students was crucial both for their own legitimacy as professional experts (Rosenholtz, 1985) and for a cleaner, sharper delivery of school and individual improvement interventions to the students. The challenge for school administrators, then, was to find appropriate methods or styles in which to motivate and challenge these teachers to commit themselves above and beyond the call of contracted duty. Transformational leadership shifted the focus from top-down management to collaborative management where a shared vision from all members of school staff equaled shared action for school improvement. Principals sought to utilize power manifested through other people, not over people (Leithwood, 1992). This shifting power dynamic effectively de- centralized control and eradicated the power/knowledge hierarchy in educational systems. Principals began to recognize teachers as equal partners in the educational process, 29 acknowledging their professionalism and capitalizing on their knowledge and skills (Marks & Printy, 2003). Ultimately, TFL re-defined intra-school relationships as an understanding of shared authority over school curriculum and instruction (Leithwood, 1992). Shared leadership. With the advent of the 21st century, the theoretical groundwork for transformational leadership found greater purchase on the work by Bass (1998) and Avolio (1999). Bass (1998) identified four main components of transformational leadership, otherwise known as the “four I’s,” which remained salient to the ever-changing world of organization overhaul in underperforming schools: • • Idealized influence: followers want to emulate the leader. Inspirational motivation: leaders inspire followers to go above and beyond what their job description entails by providing meaning to the work and motivation to followers. • Intellectual stimulation: leaders encourage followers to employ intuition, to re-question norms, rethink strategies, and reframe structures of practice • Individualized consideration: leader sees the individual as a whole person, rather than just an employee. As appealing and successful as this four-pronged approach to transformational leadership appeared to be in some schools, it ultimately failed to transfer into the larger realm of sustainable academic overhaul, mainly because TFL lacked an explicit focus on curriculum and instruction (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998). These two components of student learning are at the heart of improving student outcomes (Rosenholtz, 1985) and were crucial missing ingredients in transforming school culture and improvement. Further, just as much as Leithwood et al. (2010) acknowledge that instructional leadership is not the only influence on student achievement, 30 Marks and Printy (2003) found that the value-added paradigm of transformational leadership is a necessary but insufficient condition to achieve sustainable school improvement. Shared instructional leadership. Shared instructional leadership describes the dynamic collaboration between the principal and teachers on curricular, instructional and assessment matters to further the core technology of schools--teaching and learning. (Marks & Printy, 2003). Because teachers have the desire and the expertise to be leaders both inside and outside of the classroom (Marks & Printy, 2003), it would seem appropriate for the building principal to nurture an environment conducive to growing teacher leadership. Further, the principal can empower individuals, set an example for others and stimulate intellectual growth within the organization that, although appearing to be transformational behavior, is concurrently instructional leadership as well. Given that research has found no empirical results directly linking principal behavior to student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2010) it would behoove principals to seek other factors they can more directly affect in this regard. Research indicates that secondary school principals influence teachers and teaching practice because of the organizational climate they create, not through specific interactions or interventions (Leithwood et al., 2010). This information supports the notion that shared leadership in high school organizations would achieve optimal results focusing on principals’ efforts to nurture and shape the environment surrounding teacher practice. The combination of a transformational leader who is empowering, encouraging, and motivating staff to go beyond ordinary tasks combined with an instructional leader focused on improving curriculum, climate and instruction through these same staff members creates a hybrid infrastructure of leadership that collectively moves the organization towards mutually defined goals. Ideally, principals 31 practicing shared leadership would influence all the tangible and intangible elements surrounding the core technology of teaching that can assist teachers to do their best work. Teacher leadership. Those investigating teacher leadership of student-athletes have struggled to reach a general consensus regarding their varied outcomes (Harris, 2004). Although it is generally believed that teachers are the primary drivers to improve student outcomes (Rosenholtz,1985), over time education research has evolved to conceptualize student achievement as an ecological and multifaceted phenomenon (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Nieto, 1992; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Renn & Reason, 2012). Sharing this perspective, sport and exercise researchers have also taken a similar perspective in examining the performance outcomes of athletes in a more holistic fashion (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2004; Johnson et al., 2010; Steinberg, 1998). Decades of research have found, at best, weak connections between teacher behavior and student learning (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007; Nuthall, 2005; Oser & Baeriswy, 2001). Because of this, efforts to change teacher behavior rarely result in improvements in learning; in fact, they rarely even produce changes in teacher behavior. We believe this is because teaching is a system, and the teacher is only one component of the system. Improving systems requires a different approach that improving individuals. (Hiebert & Stigler, 2017, p. 170) Based on a study of school reform in Canadian and US schools, Hargreaves and Fink (2004) found that sometimes teachers fill in leadership gaps that occur when their principal lacks the requisite skills in a particular area. But consider that many inner-city, minority students feel disenfranchised not only from the school setting itself, but from the pool of predominantly White women that make up the teaching force in the US. How can those teachers positively influence 32 student-athletes when they are not trusted? Black, male, inner-city high school student-athletes often may be looking for leadership and guidance from those individuals who they trust, feel more connected to; those leaders are usually sport coaches who invest more time into them than a teacher ever will. Spillane (2006) argued that positional leaders such as parents or school boards can take responsibility for leadership functions or routines that are not being fulfilled by others. I would extend this argument to apply to sport coaches as leaders in the school community that attend to the social, developmental, personal, and even psychological issues surrounding inner-city, Minority, high school student-athletes. Sport leadership. Over the past century, sport and exercise psychology researchers have made concerted efforts to produce a universal understanding of leadership in sport (Chelladurai, 1978; Gould, Chung, Smith, & White, 2006; Griffith, 1926; Smoll & Smith, 1989). Researchers have sought to understand and explain what constitutes “good” coaches and “bad” coaches—and how those differences can affect athlete outcomes and performance (Bekiari, 2014; Cote & Gilbert, 2009; Gould, 2007). This section details those efforts according to the various theoretical approaches to understanding leadership, and the different instruments utilized to appropriately measure and clarify that understanding. Trait leadership in sport. "The relationship between sports and personality has fascinated physical educators, athletic coaches, and sportsmen for years'" (Sage, 1970, p. 199). From a researcher's standpoint, those personality characteristics-or traits-were thought to predict leadership effectiveness, just as in other organizations, and many studies of leader traits were conducted during the early to mid-20th century. Tutko and Richards (1971) believed that the failure of sports leaders to acknowledge that their own attitudes and personalities affected their coaching behaviors would seriously diminish their effectiveness with players. This led to the 33 further conclusion that a failure by researchers to understand those traits of good coaches would impede the progress of truly understanding what a coach needs to act like in order to be successful. Researchers such as Alderman (1974) believed that "if one can accurately identify what traits exist within a person, and to what degree he possesses each of them, it is thought that one can proceed to predict how the person will act in the future, or at least explain his current behavior" (p. 127). A 1969 study by Hendry compared what swimming coaches believed the ideal coach would be with the beliefs of junior swimmers. Results indicated that an ideal coach should be outgoing, dominating, stable, intelligent, realistic, decisive, and practical--in other words, everything. A similar study by Fuoss and Troppmann (1981) argued that the ideal coach should have technical expertise and social savvy. They further indicated that the coach's discipline tactics, motivation style, and even practice schedule would impact his/her effectiveness. However, despite evidence to support the notion that an outgoing, disciplined, and smart coach would be successful, the study of personality traits as a predictor of leadership behavior and effectiveness began to wane (Beauchamp & Martin, 2014). Trait leadership in sport gave way to alternate paradigms of understanding leader effectiveness during the mid to late 20th century. As the field of sport psychology began to gain ground and find respectability in the larger field of psychology during the late 20th century (Beauchamp & Martin, 2014), other variables of interest such as behavioral, situational, environmental, and self-regulatory processes replaced the singular notions of greatness in a leader. Leadership had begun to take shape in the literature as a multidimensional phenomenon that wasn't gender specific (almost no female coaches were included in sport trait research) 34 (Pinkston, 1982) nor inconclusive (the trait leadership literature was widely contradicted in many research studies (Beauchamp & Martin, 2014). Behavioral leadership in sport. Similar to trait leadership models, sport behavioral approaches to understanding effective leadership forwarded the notion that a universal set of behaviors could be identified and measured that would reliably predict a successful leader. Penman, Hastad, and Cords (1974) tested the degree of correlation between successful, male, interscholastic head football and basketball coaches and authoritarianism. Using a 48-item questionnaire known as the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, their research found that the more successful coaches (defined by win/loss percentage) were, in fact, more authoritarian. Similar research (Hendry, 1969; Lenk, 1977) investigated other leadership behaviors such as decision-making and creativity. A famous study conducted by Tharp and Gallimore (1976) sought to identify those exemplary leader behaviors by the legendary, Hall of Fame, UCLA men's basketball coach, John Wooden. Tharp and Gallimore (1976) found that Wooden was giving verbal instruction to his players over half of the time. Had the Teaching Effectiveness Sport Coding System (Gilbert & Riddle, 2011) been available at that time, Coach Wooden would have most likely scored extremely high in instructional domains of behavior. The work of Chelladurai and Haggerty (1978) formulated an understanding of leadership that divided leader behavior into five primary categories: 1. Autocratic: the coach solves problem by his/herself based on available information. 2. Autocratic-consultative: the coach considers input from players, then makes independent decision. 3. Consultative-individual: the coach consults with players individually, then makes independent decision. 35 4. Consultative-group: the coach consults with team as a group, then makes independent decision. 5. Group: the coach consults with the team as a group, then allows the team to make their own independent decision. Accordingly, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) developed and extensively tested (Chelladurai, 1993; Chelladurai & Reimer, 1998) the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) which was able to measure leader behaviors such as those mentioned above. Through exploratory factor analysis, Chelladurai derived 5 major dimensions of leader behavior procured from a 99- item questionnaire administered to Canadian university basketball teams (Chelladurai, 2014). Those five dimensions of leader behavior include: 1. Training and instruction (13 items) --technical information, techniques, strategies 2. Democratic behavior (9 items) --cooperative decision-making 3. Autocratic behavior (5 items) --independent decision-making, task-oriented structures 4. Social support (8 items) --motivational tendencies, relationship building 5. Positive feedback and rewards (5 items) --praise, constructive criticism One of the most influential tools for measuring coaching behavior, the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS), was developed by Smith, Smoll, and Hunt (1977). The CBAS used direct observation and coding of 12 coaching behaviors to assess leadership effectiveness in practice and games (Smoll & Smith, 1989). These 12 behaviors are further aggregated into two discrete categories of reactive behaviors (verbal response to player performance) and spontaneous behaviors (independent verbal instruction without prompting). A study was then conducted by Smith, Smoll, and Curtis (1978), in which the CBAS was used to "establish relationships between coaching behaviors and several player variables 36 specified in the conceptual model" (Smoll & Smith, 1989, p. 1528). Youth baseball coaches were observed over the course of a season, and players were interviewed regarding their coaches' behaviors and attitudes. Findings demonstrated that significant and replicable relationships existed between coaches' perceived behaviors and youth beliefs regarding their coaches' behaviors. While the CBAS clearly advanced the field toward a deeper understanding of coaching behavior, sport psychology was advancing the notions of effective leadership to include contextual, situational, and ecological considerations. New theoretical models of leadership would need to be constructed to accommodate the multi-dimensional construct that sport leadership was becoming in the latter half of the 20th century United States. Multidimensional sport leadership. As previously mentioned, Packianathan Chelladurai (1978) had already conceived an understanding of multiple effective leadership behaviors and created the Leadership Scale for Sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978) as a tool to measure those behaviors. But this was only a piece of a larger leadership construct that Chelladurai detailed in his doctoral dissertation: The Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML) (Chelladurai, 1978; 1990; 2007). The Multidimensional Model of Leadership reconciles the previously singular concepts of leader, follower, and situation, and suggests that any organization should be understood and measured as a unique interaction between all three. Simply put, .”..different coaching behaviors are preferred in different sport contexts by athletes with different characteristics” (Beauchamp & Martin, 2014, p. 409). The MML utilized Fiedler's (1967) contingency model as an important construct from which to draw guidance. More specifically, Chelladurai (1990) recognized that coaching effectiveness was contingent on much more than just the coach. Including athlete preferences 37 for leader behavior and situational variables in the MML finally gave leadership effectiveness the increased dimensionality far overdue. Chelladurai's (1993) Multidimensional Model of Leadership identified three states of leader behaviors that should be congruent with each other to reach optimal leader and follower satisfaction: 1. Required behavior—situational characteristics, social and cultural context that defines the nature of the group. 2. Preferred behavior—followers' preferences for specific forms of behavior from leader 3. Actual behavior—how the leader behaves (character, expertise, and experience) Essentially, Chelladurai (1993) was suggesting that if the requirements of a particular situation and the preferences of team members were both aligned with the coach's actual behaviors, then performance and team satisfaction would be optimized. However, if team preferences and actual coaching behaviors aren't aligned, performance may still be stellar, but team satisfaction would be low. Further, if team preferences and actual coaching behaviors are incongruent with what the situations demands, then satisfaction can be predicted to be high, but their performance would suffer. Therefore, any misalignment between the leader behavior constructs resulted in diminished performance and/or satisfaction. The multi-dimensional model of leadership was a crucial to the evolution of sport leadership in the 21st century. However, while Chelladurai’s (1990) contribution to the field of leadership increased attention to context and dimensionality, another model of leadership widely used for commercial organizations was gaining traction in the field of sport-- transformational leadership. 38 Transformational leadership in sport. As mentioned above, transformational leadership occurs when a leader utilizes a visionary approach to completing a task, where followers are inspired by the vision to create their own movement towards the goal (Roberto, 2011). The idea of a transforming leader, first identified by Burns (1978), identifies the leader as a muse or motivator for performance instead of a broker for their services. In this manner, Burns eschewed the transactional model of leadership because leaders were too controlling and self-interested in maintaining the status quo of power. Transforming motivation in a specific direction to accomplish a task requires a charismatic leader. This dynamic leader supports the followers by fostering creative innovation, appealing to their intellect, and consistently communicating the visionary goal. Most importantly, however, is the leader’s ability to challenge, inspire, and empower their followers to reach new heights (Bass & Riggio, 2006). As the leader cultivates a strong self-interest in the vision balanced with mutually beneficial outcomes leadership is transformed into a culture of excellence and sustainability where followers are motivated by their own interests to perform the task well. Current research in sport indicates that transformational leadership can enhance intrinsic motivation in athletes (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001), and individual and team outcomes (Price & Weiss, 2012). Finding ways to transform athletes’ experiences into healthy competition (Gill, 1993) where they can have fun and increase self-efficacy (Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004) is critical for fostering positive outcomes. Furthermore, as the motivation to pursue excellence comes from within him/herself as a sense of duty or higher morality, the sustainability of transformational leadership is embedded not within the leader, but the culture and community of followers. 39 Missing links in sport leadership. There is an abundance of literature on coaching leadership, but none to specifically address how that leadership plays a role in their relationship to school teachers. Coaches’ relationship to players, other coaches, parents, and counselors has been documented, and although valuable, doesn’t quite speak to the specific leadership relationship (or non-relationship) that coaches have with school teachers. The coach should be viewed as a fiduciary who is supposed to act with the student’s best educational interest in mind. This is particularly true given the tremendous influence coaches normally have over their players. Of course, coaches are hard pressed to breach the student’s academic integrity without the teachers. So, what about the teachers (Norwood, 2013)? It is likely that student-athlete social and academic behavior is mediated by their perceptions of accountability or what they ‘can get away with’. In other words, just like the child who exploits the failure of her parents’ communication, (‘...but mommy said I could have the popsicle!!’), the student-athlete who perceives a lack of communication or interaction between teachers and coaches, concludes that a lack of accountability exists between the two worlds and then may easily manipulate that gap to his or her advantage. However, although school and sport co-exist under one roof, literally and figuratively, in the lives of urban high school football and basketball student-athletes, there is no literature to specifically address how two of the most influential leaders in the lives of these student-athletes actually function. Although work to address the counselor’s relationship (Harris, 2014) with coaches is useful, the impact is somewhat limited, given that a counselor’s job is constrained (especially in urban schools!) by other job responsibilities. Furthermore, counselors might see a student-athlete once or twice in a school year, whereas a teacher would see that same student- athlete everyday—which explains why teacher influence and leadership is much stronger. 40 Additionally, counselors do not have the “power” to withhold sport participation via grade assignment like teachers have, which also lessens their impact to influence student-athletes. Another body of research addresses the unique position of teacher-coaches and how they navigate an educational system to get the best outcomes from each position. Yet, the research points to a waning pool of teacher-coaches either unwilling or unable (role-conflict) to successfully embrace both jobs. (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2012). Understanding the Evolution of Leadership in Sport and School Across several decades of research, there has been an increasing interest in utilizing coaches’ leadership practices to gain insight into athlete behavior (Jowett, 2009; Jowett & Chaundy, 2004). Likewise, there has been a similar interest in educational research to understand student outcomes via the leadership of teachers (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Research has shown compelling evidence that teachers are one of the primary drivers of student achievement (Brophy, 1984; Darling-Hammond, 1999) and coaches are one of the crucial influences on athlete behavior (Turman & Schrodt, 2004). This approach to understanding leadership stems from research suggesting that student or athlete outcomes are often influenced by those adults most invested in their success. Those investigating teacher leadership of student-athletes have struggled to reach a general consensus regarding their varied outcomes (Harris, 2004). Although it is generally believed that teachers are the primary drivers to improve student outcomes, over time education research has evolved to conceptualize student achievement as an ecological and multifaceted phenomenon (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Nieto, 1992; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Renn & Reason, 2012). Sharing this perspective, sport and exercise researchers have also taken a similar 41 perspective in examining the performance outcomes of athletes in a more holistic fashion (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2004; Johnson et al., 2010; Steinberg, 1998). Current research in the field of sport and exercise psychology suggests that student- athlete behavior and performance is an ecological construct affected by the social and cultural norms of a specific community. Fry and Gano-Overway (2010) conducted a study indicating that athletes who perceived a more caring climate were more likely to show care to others, have better relationships with their coach and teammates, and show more commitment to team. Gould, Flett, and Lauer (2012) conducted a similar study on caring climate which indicated that underserved Black athletes who perceived a caring climate in sport were associated with improved social skills and teamwork. The present study builds on the work of Gould et al. (2012) with a unique twist; it investigates the relationships of teachers and coaches who are responsible for creating and maintaining that climate for BMSAs. Furthermore, instead of focusing on how a caring climate contributes to performance and personal development outcomes in sport, this study aims to address the educational climate that is experienced by BMSAs and how those teachers and coaches perceive themselves as leaders within that environment. Using a distributed model of leadership to understand teachers’ and coaches’ perceptions of and behavior towards each other can: (1) offer new conceptions of urban leadership ecology for the research field; and (2) provide insight and direction for practitioners seeking to improve minority student-athlete outcomes. Distributed leadership in education and sport. Distributed leadership is a shared leadership, originally conceived as a framework for studying leadership in schools. This perspective focuses attention on the leadership activities/tasks rather than on the leadership positions, where effective influence is a collective action (Mascall, 2007). Distributed leadership 42 is a multi-pronged process that eschews traditional understandings of influence where one, charismatic leader shoulders the burden of power to improve academic achievement. Rather, distributed leadership identifies a more holistic, ecological approach (Leithwood, 2010) that acknowledges multiple sources of influence in the holistic development of students. Thus, these leadership activities can be distributed across many people and do not necessarily correspond to particular assigned duties. In distributed leadership, leadership activities are understood as a product of the interactions amongst leaders, followers, and the situation. Followers are not just passive recipients of leaders’ actions but may also influence leaders. The situation in the distributed leadership framework can enable, constrain, and shape leadership practice (Spillane et al., 2004). The shared or “distributed” model as defined by Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) might be the most effective model for understanding leadership in urban high schools. Shared leadership develops capacity amongst all members of the school community and is clear that the roles and actions of any adults working with students should reflect broad involvement, collaboration, and collective responsibility (Lambert, 2002). Especially in an urban high school, where many students are already disenfranchised and systematically marginalized, the opportunity for shared leadership provides those individuals an alternative to the traditional educational leaders that have been proven largely ineffective. In a shared leadership model, teachers and sport coaches would be given the same credibility as potential leaders and ensuring opportunities to impact student-athlete outcomes would be diversified. It is clear that if teachers and coaches are connected by the common goal of producing a successful student-athlete, research to carefully examine their leadership behaviors is in order. Spillane (2006) recognized that “the continued systematic application of the distributed 43 framework to the study of leadership will lead to the identification of patterns in how leadership is distributed in schools” (p. 95). This research seeks to extend that application by using a liberal interpretation of the framework—something that is not currently being done in distributed leadership literature. Distributed leadership research. Distributed leadership is not a prescription or remedy to save the ills of failing, inner-city, predominately Minority high schools or the student-athletes within. It is merely a framework to consider alternative forms or actions of leadership not previously identified in traditional leadership literature. In this sense, distributed leadership has the ability to be culturally sensitive to informal and non-traditional leaders in the inner-city high school environment, particularly for student-athletes. Spillane, Diamond, and Jita (2003) found that leadership is partly a function of the subject area. Basically, whomever is most skilled or experienced in a particular teaching domain, will probably be the most effective leader in that area. Therefore, considering sport coaches as valuable and effective leaders of student-athletes is logical in a distributed framework. Sport coaches often have invested more personal time culling a relationship with their players than teachers (Hartmann, 2003) and would be more respected because of it. Therefore, a coach who is placing high expectations of student-athlete behavior and academic achievement would be more likely to see positive results from that student-athlete than a teacher. Of course, positive results are more likely only if the coach has those high expectations. Based on a study of school reform in Canadian and US schools, Hargreaves and Fink (2004) found that sometimes teachers fill in leadership gaps that occur when their principal lacks the requisite skills in a particular area. One case study described how the principal found his staff to be generally apathetic about the culture change he was trying to instill at the school. He 44 didn’t share any opportunities with his colleagues to collaborate or contribute in meaningful ways It wasn’t until a new vice-principal entered the school and began distributing the work of change to department heads and teachers that real change began to occur. Hargreaves and Fink (2004) also pointed out that these teachers contribute to the “collective intelligence” (Brown & Lauder, 2001) of all stakeholders in a school community, and this collective will outlive any one individual. Unfortunately, many inner-city, minority students feel disenfranchised not only from the school setting itself, but from the pool of predominantly White women that make up the teaching force in the US. How can those teachers positively influence student-athletes when they are not trusted? Black, male, inner-city high school student-athletes often may be looking for leadership and guidance from those individuals that they trust, feel more connected to; those leaders are usually sport coaches who invest more time into them than a teacher ever will. Spillane (2006) argued that positional leaders such as parents or school boards could take responsibility for leadership functions or routines that are not being fulfilled by others. I would extend this argument to apply to sport coaches as leaders in the school community that attend to the social, developmental, personal, and even psychological issues surrounding inner-city, Minority, high school student-athletes. It is at this point where my own research interests fill a gap in the literature that considers alternative leaders in a school, but do not consider sport coaches—possibly one of the most influential individuals in the life of a student-athlete over her/his entire high school career (Coleman, 1962; Gould, 2006; Griffith, 1926; Hartmann, 2003). This research is overdue in the education field; amongst the leadership theories as applied to secondary institutions, there is little reference to the athletic department/NT coaches’ ability to influence academic outcomes or the 45 possibility of NT coaches’ partnering with teachers in a viable professional learning community to increase student accountability. Whether or not these leaders are formally identified by practitioners or researchers (neither of which actually happens), sport coaches fill a need for inner-city minority student athletes and have filled that niche for many years. This new consideration for distributed leadership as applied to the leadership and influence of sport coaches’ pushes the literature into a new direction for theoretical consideration and empirical pursuits. Moving beyond the ‘hero’ myth in distributed leadership. It is the work of many hands to push a student-athlete across the stage at graduation and hopefully into the workforce or college. Besides putting a tremendous amount of pressure on just one person to achieve superhero accomplishments; to surmise that one individual person is responsible for all the effort, work, and sacrifice that it often required of disadvantaged, inner city student-athletes to graduate is arrogant and dangerously incorrect. Ironically, while the study of leadership practices has traditionally “located them in individuals to whom ‘heroic’ capabilities and charismatic qualities are attributed,” most organizations have always relied heavily on the leadership provided by many other members of the organization to actually get the work done” (Leithwood, 2009, p. 223). Apparently, the heroics of the leadership genre have a stranglehold on how we think about leadership (Spillane, 2006). In spite of various studies that confirm no monopoly exists for school administrators in the world of school leadership (Camburn et al, 2004; Heller & Firestone, 1995; in Leithwood, 2009), the jury of public opinion, popular culture, and Hollywood entertainment would suggest otherwise. The Hero leader acting to save the minority, inner-city high school student athletes is a recurring (and tired) theme in theatre productions. (Trier, 2005). So, it is not surprising that 46 research and practice align with the dominant narrative in the U.S.—it exists unchecked and subsequently normalized by the “gatekeepers of public opinion.” Unfortunately, these leader heroes in urban high schools do not automatically have a greater sensitivity to urban issues. Their presence in these contexts does not endow with them with a knowledge set that positions them as insiders. (Scott & Solyom, p. 6). Therefore, in a distributed paradigm, a sport coach who may have more community connections, trust, and capital would be a much more effective leader of their student-athletes than the hero leader (usually principal). Parents, sport coaches, teachers, or other community members can take responsibility for leadership functions and routines, at times in an effort to “make up for leadership gaps that result from formally designated leaders’ lack of expertise or oversight” (Crowther, Kaagan, Suger, & Haan, 2002; in Spillane). It is not to say that the principal is not an effective leader, but rather to identify other leaders in the school community who might scaffold weaknesses within the organization. Distributed leadership as a source of empowerment for marginalized leaders. Distributed leadership encourages diversity of leadership for student-athletes by empowering a larger pool of individuals. In many inner-city schools, teachers see principals come and go like a revolving door, and have learned over time to resist the “outsider’s” perspective on school improvement. The cultural isolation between the communities/people from which the leader typically hails and the one where they work does make significant impact on how education leaders understand and interact with the multiple ingredients shaping the urban context. (Scott & Solyom, p. 6) 47 Meanwhile, distributing leadership highlights the hidden actors and dimensions of leadership within a school. Highlighting the ‘unglamorous’ aspects of effective leadership as an integrated movement brings about overdue appreciation for leaders previously unrecognized at the school. (Spillane, 2006). A distributed framework allows for a sport coach to establish a relationship with a teacher which helps the process of instruction in several ways: (1) it motivates the student-athlete to do well in classes because he/she understands that there is viable relationship and communication between the two; and (2) by encouraging sport coaches to unearth or illuminate themselves as viable leaders in a school, it provides more accountability for student-athlete performance and behavior that supports teachers in their daily instruction. In other words, as coaches are integrated into the fabric of school as a tenable source of leadership, (whether or not they are physically roaming the halls) their presence is felt and fingers stretch over student-athletes as an omniscient but very successful behavior check/modifier. Based on interviews conducted in a study of 21 schools in four US cities, Portin and his colleagues also showed that responsibility for leadership is distributed not only among appointed leaders but also among de facto leaders—that is, individuals who, regardless of their position, exercise influence on others with respect to the direction the school is taking or should take (Portin, Schneider, DeArmond, & Gundlach, 2003). It is again this notion of distributed leadership, as a movement and a practice that involves many actors, that can be empowering for those not actually playing a “leading role” in the show. Sometimes the most important contributions to any organization (janitors, secretaries) are the least acknowledged or publicly identified as leaders. I would argue that in academic models of leadership, the same could be said about sports coaches. 48 Inclusion and fluidity in distributed leadership. It is clear that distributed leadership is not bound to traditional mores of educational leadership. This theoretical freedom affords the paradigm a unique privilege of approaching current educational issues in new ways. Spillane (2006) recognized that current models of educational improvement in urban schools are not optimal and in fact, not even desirable. These models deny the expertise of teachers and therefore fail to capitalize on important resources. Additionally, it is undemocratic for the teachers and other staff Ingersoll (2003) to be removed from decision-making process regarding their own practice and such models does not address the principal’s limited span of control in a complex organization (Flessa, 2003). For sport coaches, the fluid, dynamic framework of distributed leadership views them as fully capable of supporting the goals of the high schools by acknowledging the influence and respect that coaches have with their student-athletes. Furthermore, as sport coaches are acknowledged as a productive and contributing member of the actual school community, the benefits of ensuing relationships could greatly benefit organizational goals and student achievement. Heller and Firestone (1995) found that “…by casting nets that go beyond the designed organization and focusing on the lived organization, some studies show that individuals with no formal leadership position—mostly classroom teachers—also take responsibility for school leadership and management” (Heller & Firestone, 1995; Spillane 2006). Their research revealed leadership activity and interaction between teachers and principals was positive practice, exemplified in the following response: You know, to see two people interact as peers, as equals, I think is really beneficial for the staff and for the students. Almost like, you know, how having a two-parent family is 49 a better model than having a single parent…People see us modeling, working together…I think it’s made some people who were hesitant perhaps to have partner teachers, so they can---I don’t know, I think it’s just helped this spirit of collaboration and kind of coaching and mentoring. (Leithwood, 2009, p. 149) Similar to findings from Heller and Firestone (1995), if principals or teachers were to interact with sport coaches in this same manner on a consistent basis, student-athletes would not only appreciate the “teamwork” displayed by the adult leaders in their lives, but their accountability to and involvement in the educational community would improve. Consider how parents, guardians, and other family members act as a “team” for their mutual child—reinforcing each other’s rules, orders, expectations—for the common goal of producing a good citizen for the community. Each adult may have their own (often different) influence over and leadership for that child, but the shared purpose of producing an awesome kid often supersedes disagreements they may have. If educators (principals, teachers and coaches) are similarly connected by the common goal of producing a successful student-athlete, a careful examination of their relationships is clearly in order. Hence, my own research agenda can address this gap in the literature by investigating the mutual perceptions of and behaviors between teachers and coaches as a precursor to understanding how leadership affects minority student-athlete outcomes in inner-city environments. The inclusion of sport coaches as an important component of leadership in the inner-city high school community for student-athletes requires policymakers and administrators to acknowledge and embrace the work of sport coaches as more than just athletic competition. Spillane (2006) suggested “if expertise is distributed, then the school rather than the individual leader may be the most appropriate unit for thinking about the development of leadership 50 expertise” (p. 100). Because research has indicated that sport coaches play a large role in the development of minority, inner-city high school student-athletes (Hartmann, 2003; Richardson, 2012) maximizing the potential contributions and talents of other non-traditional leaders (like sport coaches), the entire school improves their collective ability to motivate (and hopefully positively affect) a diverse collection of student-athletes. I disagree with Sailes (1986) argument that insensitive coaches will prepare student- athletes for failure. On the contrary, most coaches in the inner-city work for pennies on the dollar, sacrifice their own personal time and resources, because they are passionate about coaching and committed to help shaping successful individuals. Furthermore, if only a minute number of these elite athletes make it big time, then we can assume that the coaches are encountering an equally small number of student-athletes in high school who actually present the talent and ability to “make a name for themselves, their school and their coaches”—which is primarily where those insensitive coaches go wrong—the bright lights of notoriety, fame, and possibility. Most coaches never see this level of exposure on a state or national level and it is hard to argue that the time, toil, and toll that coaching takes on inner-city coaches somehow renders them insensitive to the successful academic development of their student-athletes (Sailes, 1986). Rather, I would argue that the acknowledgment of sport coaches’ contributions to the school community and inclusion into the leadership community would further motivate them to continue the thankless but necessary work they do with inner-city student-athletes on a daily basis. Issues in distributed leadership. Distributed leadership is not without critics or shortcomings; any tool is limited in its ability to fix a problem. First, distributed leadership may insinuate a lack of focused leadership in an inner-city high school, where clear roles are 51 imperative to the school community. Leithwood (2009) argues that “distributed leadership lies at the extreme end of what is typically thought of as a continuum of degrees of participatory leadership” (p.7). If anybody and everybody can participate as leaders, who are the followers? Where is cooperation and teamwork if everyone wants to be a leader of their own domain? Perhaps too far left on the leadership continuum may be a bit extreme for conventional educators. Furthermore, in a distributed framework, the ambiguity of leadership activity is potentially problematic. “Undeniably, a central problem for those adopting either a normative or descriptive lens on distributed leadership is some version of figuring out ‘who does what’?” (Leithwood, 2009, p. 8). Student-athletes (and students in general) cannot transform themselves to identify with each new world that different leaders are attempting to create within the school. As Harris (2004) cautions, there is a danger that distributed leadership will become a catch-all for any attempt to delegate leadership to others. Leithwood et al. (2003) agrees that it would be unfortunate if distributed leadership practice wound end up being everything and nothing at the same time. Therefore, if effective leadership is distributed throughout the school, a common thread of purpose and role clarity must exist throughout. Distributed leadership has the ability to privilege actions of leadership by the individuals with means to enact those behaviors while also marginalizing voices with substantially less capital or agency. A substantial amount of research regarding inner-city sport already takes a deficit approach (Coakley, 1998), and allowing the progressive framework of distributed leadership to follow this course would be disastrous. Ensuring that all voices in a school community are heard and that prevailing cultural conditions are considered before applying the 52 researcher’s tools would ensure a smoother transposition between theory and practice, particularly in my own work. Furthermore, “like any analytical tool, [distributed leadership] frames the phenomenon under scrutiny—leadership in this case—in a particular manner, highlighting some aspects of the phenomenon and downgrading or even altogether obscuring other aspects” (Spillane, 2006, p. 94). I acknowledge that distributed leadership is simply one lens to inspect inner-city leadership and am acutely aware that my specific focus on student-athletes overshadows what some may argue is the larger issue of underperforming minority students in general—which it does. However, given that there are over 7 million high school student-athletes in the U.S.A., a disproportionate number of whom are minorities who are underperforming in inner-city high schools (Seung, 2013), I believe this research is important and has the ability to transfer into general school populations (e.g. considering not just sport coaches as leaders, but drama coaches, secretaries, janitors, public safety officers, etc.). Distributed leadership may be a hot topic in education circles, but empirical knowledge about it is thin and not all of it supportive. Empirical evidence about the consequences of distributed leadership is not all positive. A recent, very comprehensive, review of teacher leadership—one approach to the distribution of influence and control in school organization— found only a very small handful of studies which has actually inquired about effects on students and these data were generally not supportive (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). I make the counter- argument that York-Barr and Duke (2004) only reviewed teacher leadership without considering the larger school communities’ (coaches, public safety, etc.) effects on students. I find their interpretation of distributed leadership to be narrow and not fully embracing the true tenets of the models’ character. 53 Gronn and Hamilton (2004) support my own assertion that distributed leadership has been relatively limited in scope throughout the literature. “Most examinations of distributed leadership have focused on the school and explored the spread of leadership among principals and teachers without exploring the role of the district” (or the sport coaches, for that matter) (Leithwood, 2009, p. 62). It appears that even a relatively revolutionary leadership model like the distributed framework is still interpreted through the moderate or traditional eyes of researchers and has therefore failed to produce the positive results of which this model is truly capable. Leithwood (2009) actually warns readers that “the lack of empirical evidence about the practice and effects of leadership distribution has caused us to question the enthusiasm for this approach to leadership in schools” (p. 12). Similar to the previous argument, I would counter that the distributed framework is not being applied in a way that truly encompasses the nature of distribution—why only include the usual suspects of teachers, principals, etc. when there are so many other possible leaders to consider? Spillane (2006) acknowledged the lack of literature in this area and noted that “few have investigated how leadership takes shape in the interactions among leaders, followers, and their situation; most of the work in this area has been done by me and Gronn and his colleagues” (p. 57) (Goldstein, 2004; Gronn, 2002, 2003; Spillane, Diamond, & Jita, 2000, 2003; Spillane, Diamond, Sherer, & Coldren, 2004). While it is clear that the distributed paradigm is not strongly supported in the literature, what is unclear is if the existing work is truly applying a distributed lens to the data or if researcher positionality or traditionalism has precluded a larger consideration of leadership in the inner-city high schools. Distributed leadership conclusion. Using a distributed lens, sport coaches can be considered salient contributors to the improvement and development of student-athletes and 54 given their due as viable leaders within the school community. Subsequently, their partnerships with teachers and other school administrators must be further examined because “understanding how leadership actually gets done in schools is imperative if research is to generate usable knowledge for school leaders” (Spillane, 2006, p.7). If future work seeks to inform research and practice of inner-city high school leadership for student-athletes, then current research should first attend to what exists in urban learning contexts right now. I agree with Spillane (2006) that “the continued systematic application of the distributed framework to the study of leadership will lead to the identification of patterns in how leadership is distributed in schools” (p. 95). My work seeks to illuminate the true character of distributed leadership by using a liberal interpretation of the framework—something that is not currently being done in distributed leadership literature. More specifically, I am investigating the perceived leadership behaviors of teachers and sport coaches as a precursor to BMSA student- athlete outcomes. 55 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the perceptions and behaviors of teachers and coaches in urban high schools as they contribute to the leadership ecology surrounding BMSAs. This research is important because BMSAs, specifically those that play basketball and football, are the lowest academic performers of all high school student-athletes in the United States. If practitioners seek to address the under-development of academically successful BMSAs, then researchers should first provide a contextualized understanding of the academic environment teachers and coaches create for them . Therefore, an exploratory qualitative study that provided flexibility and depth (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) was most appropriate to use for this dissertation. Research Design This study is an extension of a larger inquiry conducted by the same researcher with the goal of understanding the leadership ecology created by teachers and sport coaches for their mutual student-athletes. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the larger, primary dataset was collected from three high schools from the same urban district with the aim of exploring leadership in those high school contexts. This particular district was chosen because of its high minority populations, inner-city location, academic underperformance and athletic overachievement. The primary dataset consists of 27 participants: nine teachers, nine coaches, and nine teacher-coaches (three of each from the three high schools). The sub-sample for this dissertation is described under the Procedures section of this chapter. Rationale for qualitative research design. Qualitative methodology was most fitting for this study for several reasons. First, qualitative methods place an emphasis on discovery and 56 description, and the objectives are generally focused on extracting and interpreting the meaning of experience (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008a; Merriam, 2009). Information regarding the various tendencies, attitudes, expectations and inner workings of two different populations of urban educators require the in-depth substance of an interview. In this study, teachers and coaches are interviewed to extract information regarding their perceptions of leadership as a precursor to interpret their reported behaviors. Obtaining such specific data with purposive sampling will provide for more in-depth and accurate analyses. Second, this particular study seeks to take a closer look at specific cases of sport coaches—Black, male basketball and football coaches—and teachers--White female educators—to address the phenomenon of leadership ecology between the two that is currently missing from sport and education literature. For this study, qualitative methods were necessary for several reasons. First, there is almost no research examining the leadership of teachers and sport coaches regarding their mutual BMSAs. The scarcity of information to guide the current study highlights the need for a qualitative approach that can produce the rich data required for a thorough examination of the leadership perceptions and behaviors of educational leaders. Second, similar studies of leadership in education (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) and sport (Gould, Collins, Lauer, & Chung, 2007) have used qualitative interviews when examining new or little understood concepts. Finally, the fundamental assumptions and key features that distinguish what it means to proceed from a qualitative stance fit well within this study, including: (1) understanding the processes by which events and actions take place; and (2) developing contextual understanding (Bloomberg, 2012). In sport and education research, the use of qualitative methodology to understand processes and actions is extensive and validated. Therefore, the use of qualitative methodology in this current study to: (1) understand the processes of communication and interaction between 57 educational leaders of BMSAs, and (2) ascertain specific leadership actions and interactions by teachers and coaches, is well supported in the literature. Developing context and understanding. There is a plethora of education (Balyer, 2012) and sport psychology (Munroe-Chandler, 2005) research using qualitative methodology to develop context and understanding of specific phenomena within both fields of study. An exploratory, multiple case-study, by Thomas-Hilburn (2010) used qualitative methods to illuminate the lived experiences of high school dropouts. His multiple case-study of five former high school dropouts provided insight into how and why students initially failed to persist, and also identified socially supported mechanisms by which they were able to bounce back and eventually earn their GED/diploma. The use of qualitative methodology to develop a contextual understanding of leadership perceptions and behaviors by teachers and coaches in urban high schools is strongly validated in multiple research fields. Epistemology. “Epistemology is concerned with the nature and forms of knowledge” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 7). If knowledge and the ways of discovering it are subjective (Scotland, 2012), then it is a good practice for researchers to make their epistemological preferences clear (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This clarity allows participants and readers alike to effectively understand where the writer is coming from and where she would like to go. My approach is to study the behavioral and perceptual realities of teachers and coaches, and my approach is critically interpretive. An interpretive epistemology acknowledges that reality differs from person to person (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) and that each person constructs their own version of reality (Scotland, 2012). Furthermore, in these subjective realities lies knowledge and the meaning of that knowledge--which people interpret in different ways (Crotty, 1998). Therefore, it is my contention that urban high school teachers and coaches have formed their own subjective 58 realities regarding the leadership of BMSAs and this research is an attempt to illuminate their multiple truths. Glesne (2011) posits that an interpretivist approach includes an assumption that reality is socially constructed and complex; furthermore, Kim (2001) posits that reality is constructed through human activity and resulting knowledge created through these interactions. My interpretive approach to understanding the leadership interactions between teachers and coaches regarding their mutual BMSAs is supported by Rogoff (1990), who asserts that socially created realities are created between individuals where interactions are centered on common interests that shape their communication. Procedures Research site/location. The research design is an in-depth, collective case study investigation in the Midwestern U.S. Three, inner-city high schools in the same district (DST)— High School #1 (HS1), High School #2 (HS2), and High School #3 (HS3) are the three cases being explored in study. The entire district receives free/reduced lunch; all three high schools are designated Title 1 and “high priority,” according to the Michigan Department of Education’s public website. In 2012, none of the three high schools achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind standards. DST was chosen because it is a Title I district; all three high schools within DST are eligible for free/reduced lunch, only HS1 has achieved AYP in the past decade, and HS3 is actually eligible to be taken over by the state’s Education Achievement Authority (EAA). DST was also chosen for its outstanding athletic achievements over the past century. In the past 2 decades, the three high schools have over 40 combined state champions, team and individual sports. This sample is clearly underachieving academically and 59 overachieving athletically, which supports the researcher’s endeavor to understand the complex interactions between school and sport leadership that may inform those outcomes. Participant selection. Qualitative information regarding the expectations and perceptions of urban educators requires the in-depth substance of an interview. Obtaining such specific, qualitative data with purposive sampling (Merriam, 2009; in Bloomberg, 2012, p. 104) provides for greater precision and accuracy in data analyses. The logic of purposive sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases, with the objective of yielding insight and understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. As this study aimed to examine the leadership behaviors of urban high school teachers and coaches regarding their mutual BMSAs, it was prudent to basketball coaches from the larger dataset because that specific sport draws the largest BMSA participation. A second aim was to investigate the perceptions that teachers and coaches had towards each other, so males and female teachers were purposely chosen to make equitable but gender-specific comparisons. Additionally, research (Harper & Davis, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Milner, 2007; Noguera, 2003) indicates that white teachers fail to adequately support BMSA academically or socially in urban contexts, so a White female teacher was also purposefully selected from the larger dataset. Finally, because good research aims to disprove as much as it proves, Black and White male teachers were also chosen as participants to explore if previous findings regarding racial and gender specific leadership in urban schools was supported or refuted by the data in this study. Because this study is part of a larger research project (as discussed in Chapter 1) purposeful, criterion sampling (Miles & Huberman, 2004) is the most fitting strategy to select six individual participants—a teacher and a coach—from each of the three high schools. This study aimed to investigate the leadership perceptions and behaviors of urban high school teachers and 60 coaches; therefore, the sample had to purposefully and deliberately include those specific individuals. Furthermore, the subsample I planned to investigate had multiple qualifiers. Teachers were chosen based on the following criteria: (1) availability and willingness to participate in the study; (2) did not coach a sport in the school that they taught; and, (3) had to teach boys basketball or football players. Coaches were chosen based on the following criteria: (1) availability and willingness to participate in the study; (2) did not teach any classes in the school that they coached for; and, (3) had to either coach boy’s basketball or football. Table 1: Sampling description High School 1 High School 2 High School 3 teacher (White, female) teacher (White, female) teacher (White, male) coach (Black, male) coach (Black, male) coach (Black, male) Table 2: Sampling results High School 1 High School 2 High School 3 24 Teachers 4 Teacher/Coaches 63 Teachers 7 Teacher/Coaches 4 Teacher/Coaches 64 Teachers 29 Coaches 26 Coaches 29 Coaches Instruments/Interview protocol. The questions were semi-structured but open-ended and allowed freedom for improvisational questioning/responses. All interviews were conducted in a private room and permission to record the interview requested. The researcher kept field notes of all interview sessions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim with Dragon transcription software and audio data stored on a password-encrypted cloud storage account on a password- 61 encrypted computer. All data will be saved on the cloud storage account as a resource for future studies. Data collection. The school district approved this research project (Appendix A) and the necessary Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals were also attained (Appendix B). Principals and athletic directors at all three high schools received an email (Appendix C) from the researcher explaining the project with attached clearances from District administration and the IRB. Participants were apprised of the study and asked for permission to record the interview. (Skype interviews were offered as well). A Livescribe pen was used by the researcher for the interviews that enabled concurrent audio and written data collection. Livescribe pens are both writing utensils and audio recorders--as the researcher is taking notes the pen is simultaneously recording the conversation. Therefore, observation is not limited by the researchers’ need to be diligent in note taking. The participants were promised that they would not be held for longer than an hour; an exception was made when a teacher or coach wanted to continue the interview past the hour deadline. Analysis Data transcription. Interviews were transcribed verbatim within 2 days of recording using Dragon software. Audio and video data are stored on a password-encrypted computer in a locked office. All data will be saved for 3 years as a resource for future studies and then considered for deletion. Data coding. A code is an abstract representation of an object or phenomenon (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) or a way of identifying themes in a text (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). Codes are also fluid organizing principles dependent on the decisions of the researcher. They can be expanded, 62 changed, or scrapped altogether as our ideas develop through repeated interactions with the data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Coding is designed to support analysis—it is not an end in itself. What becomes important then, is that the coder records the way he or she is thinking about the data, keeps track of decisions made, and builds a case supported by the data for the conclusions reached. For each interviewee, a line-by-line content analysis of the interview extracted the important elements that constitute their profile. Afterward, brief summaries for each individual were produced, depicting their perceptions of the leadership behaviors and interaction of teachers and coaches in their respective schools. An initial analysis of the data clarified the perspective of each participant. As stated by Creswell (2000), “when multiple cases are chosen, a typical format is to first provide a detailed description of each case and themes within the case, called a within- case analysis, followed by a thematic analysis across the cases, called a cross-case analysis” (p. 46). Therefore, based on Creswell’s (2000) suggestion, a second analysis (cross-case) analysis was in order. Regarding the aims of this study, two different approaches were necessary: (1) themes or characteristics were selected according to their importance in the literature as well as their prevalence in the interview transcripts and profile summaries???; (2) an inductive analysis was performed on the qualitative data to identify emerging themes (Lacroix, Camiré, & Trudel, 2008). Throughout the process of identification and interpretation of themes and sub-themes, the data were categorically aggregated, to include both supporting and refuting data points; a strategy intended to ensure that the coding scheme fit the data and not vice versa (Benson, 2000). Establish saturation. “How many interviews is enough?” (Culver, Gilbert, & Sparkes, 2012, p. 269). This question has been the source of much discussion and debate in the world of 63 qualitative research since the paradigm’s inception. Corbin and Strauss (2015) described saturation as being both a simple and complex endeavor; in one regard, researchers simply continue to gather information until no new categories or relevant themes emerge. Yet, it is a simultaneously complex process whereby the researcher is required to assess depth, logic, and completeness of information. Regarding this particular study, participants were purposefully sampled from the larger research project based on both the inclusion criteria mentioned above and the respondent’s ability to sufficiently and completely address the focal points in question. Therefore, I was able to establish saturation regarding the questions of teacher and coach leadership behaviors and perceptions by using a total of six interviews from the larger sample of 36. Maintenance of audit and log trails (Siccama & Penna, 2008). These trails provide a means for tracking decisions and assumptions throughout the research process. Audit and log trails consist of text and audio memos, dated screenshots and other electronic means of tracking how the researcher came to make the decisions that she did. It can also serve as a strategy for allowing outsiders to see how such decisions and assumptions have evolved over the life of the project. There are two specific concepts of which readers can be assured with the use of these two tools: rigor and validity. Researcher reflexivity/positionality. I have previously worked in this school district, as an athletic administrator at one of the high schools in this study. As a previous practitioner that was both familiar with and trusted in the environment I intended to research, there were certain affordances and insider benefits I capitalized on throughout the project. I had established a professional network of teachers and coaches across the district that made participant identification and recruitment relatively easy. More importantly, as a card-carrying union 64 member of the district, I maintained a certain level of trust and familiarity that positively affected my ability to establish excellent rapport during the interview process and dig deeper into subjects than less trusted individuals would be allowed. Conversely, inasmuch as familiarity breeds contempt, these same benefits of insider status constrained the work as participants questioned my ability to remain impartial and maintain anonymity. As a former athletic director, teachers may have doubted my ability to see the faults with the coaches and fairly judge their situation. Coaches might have felt uneasy reporting their true beliefs, thinking I would go back and report to the principal any reported wrongdoing or improper behavior. All of these considerations are simultaneously inescapable but avoidable—if the researcher appropriately accounts for both. Pretending that positionality does not exist and attempting to avoid the personal affinity that binds each researcher to his/her project potentially undermines the authenticity of the text. Researchers’ multiple and varied positions, roles, and identities are intricately and inextricably embedded in the process and outcomes of education research (Ladson-Billings, 2000). On the other hand, someone has to make decisions regarding the research, without which there is no project. At some point, any researcher must make critical design decisions and analyses interpretations that limit objectivity in its’ truest sense. Therefore, I plan to use my own administrative and sport experience in an urban secondary high school to find common ground with teachers and position the project as a practitioner-based inquiry. This strategy might create greater teacher trust and willingness to be involved in the project if they see it as something that will be useful to them in the classroom. The issue of positionality is embraced by critical theorists in education research, who champion the cause of deeper personal awareness by researchers and the undue influence that 65 such (conscious or subconscious) personal bias can have on research subjects, participants, methodologies and analyses (Milner, 2007). Researchers who tout strictly objective methods may run the risk of covertly diminishing the subject or influencing the reader if positionality is not adequately addressed. Furthermore, these invisible influences may serve to unduly bias both researcher and participant, effectively weakening the methodology and analyses of the data unless it is acknowledged and accounted for. Authentic text is honest text; it acknowledges that certain decisions and positions must be taken as a researcher but then conducts experiments, collects information and subsequently analyzes the data in such a transparent way to avoid corrupting or unduly influencing the core of the inquiry. Positionality in critical research. H. Richard Milner IV (2007) warned educational researchers about the dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen with regards to their own positionality in research. He posits that dangers can emerge when and if researchers do not engage in processes that can circumvent misinterpretations, misinformation, and misrepresentations of individuals, communities, institutions, and systems. Although Milner IV (2007) specifically targets race and culture in his article, he does acknowledge that this particular approach to avoiding the pitfalls of biased research can be applied to other aspects of education and entirely different fields of research, for that matter. Milner’s (2007) “seen danger” (choices of the researcher that can explicitly emerge as problematic in the study): The power positioning of the athletic director/principal privileges and skews possible responses in the interviews with coaches/teachers. Teachers and coaches may worry that their participation in this research would be perceived by administrators as complaining or job dissatisfaction. 66 Milner’s (2007) “unseen danger” (hidden, covert, implicit or invisible researcher choices or reasoning embedded throughout the research process): I did not choose to utilize teacher/coaches in my methodology for a comparison study. Non-teacher coaches and non- coaching teachers will invariably have much to say about each other and student-athletes, but creating an alternative lens from which to compare those opinions would be helpful and certainly garner more insight to attend to my research question. Milner’s (2007) “unforeseen danger” (unanticipated or unpredicted occurrences or responses in a research project as a result of certain researcher choices): Is this research framed as a deficit-model inquiry where certain questions in surveys or interviews are steering coaches/teachers to say negative things about each other or student-athletes? My positionality. In making a “conscious effort to surface participants subjugated knowledges and to recognize them as distinct and valid in an effort to inspire critical reflections on the power relationships that pervade research” (Nicholls, 2007), I both acknowledge and resist traditional research tendencies to privilege certain types of knowledge and bias methodology and evaluation. My personal knowledge and experience as an athletic director and teacher will certainly provide insight into choices I made in the research methodology, but participant knowledge counteracted those biases with an alternative perspective. Undoubtedly, what questions I asked in the interviews, and even what data I will coded as significant within these interviews were all shaped by my own experiences and opinions from working with inner- city teachers, coaches and student athletes. Regarding my own research, I focus less on a personal voice and more on the voice of the research subjects, as Milner IV (2007) suggests. Making the subjects of this research come alive in the project and giving those voices who are rarely acknowledged in the highly stratified 67 academic world of research the opportunity to give back practical knowledge and wisdom would establish my work as fair, honest and authentic. Or would it? It appears that every effort to take positionality out of the equation in the research process is met with an equal but opposite obligation to make arbitrary decisions surrounding this same process. Admittedly, the very privilege of being able to make these methodological distinctions and participant affordances are essentially biased, but efforts that encourage reciprocity and lessen power dynamics serve an important function to combat embedded affordances prevalent in traditional research. 68 Overview CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This study was designed to examine the leadership beliefs and practices of inner-city high school coaches and teachers, specifically regarding their BMSAs. Specifically, this study sought to better understand the particular beliefs and behaviors that characterized these individuals, as a source of insight to better understand the environment that BMSAs must navigate on a daily basis. This results section will be divided into three separate analyses. For the first analyses, each teacher/coach dyad will be presented in its own section, including ideographic profiles of the schools, teachers and coaches. The ideographic profiles provide a deep, contextualized understanding of each participant. Key findings from three within-case analyses of the teacher- coach dyads at each high school in the district will follow the ideographic profiles. In the first section, it is important to clarify that the teacher/coach dyad is the focus of analysis; each individual high school is ancillary to the dyad construct. The second section will present two cross-case analyses: the first examining the perceptions and beliefs of teachers across all three high schools in the district, followed by an examination of coaches across the three high schools. Similarto the first analysis, the second section’s unit of analysis is focused on leadership roles across the district—from which high school each participant came is inconsequential for the purposes of this analysis. Instead, a cross-case comparison considers individuals from across the district in a secondary analysis of leadership perceptions and behaviors. Finally, major themes from a hierarchical content analysis of the entire sample will be presented as a starting point to build an effective model of leadership for BMSAs in urban high schools. 69 Case 1: High School 1 Ideographic profiles. School. High School 1 is a public high school established on the city’s east side in 1928. At last count, enrollment at HS1 was 1,232 students. HS1 is an International Baccalaureate (IB) school, but services less than 5% of the student population in that capacity. According to the state data reporting website, 9% of all Black students at HS1 are proficient in all subjects tested on the STEP (Student Test of Educational Progress). The website did not disaggregate genders at that level, so it was not possible to report specific proficiency percentages for BMSAs at HS1. HS1 has 70 teachers on staff, 7 of whom are teacher/coaches. EHS fields 22 Varsity sports teams. Teacher profile: LEBERMAN. General background. 69 year old White male who was born and raised on a farm. He is married with no children. Leberman has a Bachelors, 2 Masters and 1 Doctorate degree. Previously a foreman for a construction company, Leberman has been teaching US history and government at the same urban high school for 23 years. Leberman was a self-proclaimed ‘nerd’, but he did wrestle for Varsity team in high school and had a great relationship with his coach. Leadership philosophy. “Leadership entails the use of power. Power is the ability of one person to get a second person to do what the first person would like. Whether that power is based on physical strength or some role differential (teacher/student, coach/athlete), there is always some sort of power interaction taking place. Leadership perceptions of self. Leberman understands his own leadership in the classroom as nuanced and sophisticated. Leberman believes a leader uses one’s influence to compel others to accomplish a task and understands this influential leadership in very diplomatic 70 terms. He mentions that leadership entails the use of power and sees how two different types of power—hard and soft—play out differently for teachers and coaches. “I think of the sort of diplomatic distinction between the soft power of diplomacy versus the hard power of war and threat. In leadership, there’s different ways you can use that power” (179). Leberman described how he felt that the hierarchical order of student to teacher was a necessary evil because that distance engendered a certain level of respect. “You know, I, as a teacher, and as the teacher who’s always in the suit, tie, I have this sort of elevated posture. I’m not their friend. I’m the teacher” (557). Meanwhile, Leberman recognized that his ability to reach students from that high perch was hindered. He could see that his role as a teacher typically meant using hard power with BMSAs that would not be easily received. “The Latin root of educate is EDUCO: which literally means to lead out, lead forward. So, if teachers cannot lead them, they cannot educate them” (177). The arbitrary nature of hard power doesn’t necessitate the use of influence, which clearly inhibits a teacher’s classroom effectiveness. He recognized that he although “you can actually team up with your fellow teacher to address behavior problems, academic problems,” that soft power of coach’s influence was an important but missing member of the team. Leadership perceptions of sport coaches. Leberman believes that presence matters in the life of young Black men. In my estimation, males operate and grow based on the presence of the father. Now, it doesn’t have to be verbal. You don’t have to spend a whole lot of time talking when you spend time with your father. With sons and fathers, it's a presence as much as all the words that are said. To be in the presence of your father creates this kind of unspoken bond and unspoken learning environment. That is somewhat what happens when you have a coach, especially one that works in 71 the building. There’s a physical presence that is so important to these young men. Leberman’s keen observation about male presence has been supported in several studies about the positive impacts that mentoring has had a Black youth (Black, 2010; Richardson, 2012). He described a situation that not only strengthened this belief but led to some introspection and newfound appreciation for a past coach in his own life. When I was in a men’s group in Washington, DC one time, I distinctly remember sitting around in a circle of about 40 men talking about who was the most important man in your life? The man that really helped you become a man? Everybody said their dad or their coach. That really struck me because even though I was never really into sports like that, Coach Trumble did an awful lot to shape this kind of resiliency in me that really helped me succeed in life. Reflections on this interview. Leberman is a diminutive, calculating, and soft-spoken White male. He is an extremely thoughtful, intelligent man. He answered questions slowly, carefully, and asked many questions of the interviewer as well. Because of his long-standing tenure at the same urban high school, he has keen insight into the culture of urban spaces and adaptability to its constant changes. Conversely, in-spite of this same long-standing tenure, Leberman didn’t appear to have that exhausted, broken, even jaded persona reflected by many urban teachers. Instead, he verbalized a willingness to be a learner from his students as much as he was a teacher of them. Lebermans’ engaging, open attitude is endearing, and I could easily see how relationship building wouldn’t be a problem for him. Furthermore, Lebermans’ austere presence was established immediately when I sat down to interview him, and he exuded the confidence of one who has seen a lot and is able to clearly define that reality. 72 Coach profile: STABLER. General background. 54-year old Black male who grew up in a mid-sized, diverse Midwest city. He is married with 2 children. Stabler has an Associate’s degree from a local community college and has worked 30 years with the State police. He has coached basketball for 33 years; the first 18 he coached Varsity boys and girls basketball teams in a suburban district, the last 15 years have been at urban high school. Stabler was a multi-sport athlete in high school and played basketball and football and the junior college level. Leadership philosophy. Stabler was very adamant about the integrity of leadership. Stabler reiterated throughout the interview that he was willing to back up any words to BMSAs with actions—whether supportive or punitive. He also defined leadership as a humble endeavor. “Well, a true leader is somebody that can lead from the front or from the rear. It doesn’t matter where they’re at.” He rationalized that a strong leader will lead by example, therefore motivating followers to move in the desired direction. Leadership perceptions of self. Stabler had very clear ideas about his leadership of BMSA. “I won’t ever be their friend, but I’ll be their big brother, I’ll be their dad, their coach, the taxi driver, chef, hotel attendant. Or whatever they need me to do. You know what I mean?”(12). Stabler’s approach to leadership is service-oriented and relationship based; as a Black man, Stabler understands the struggle that BMSAs go through on a daily basis and believes that his first priority for these kids lie lower on Maslow’s hierarchy than most teachers are willing to reach. Stabler perceives himself as a father-figure to his BMSAs and speaks about the different hats that he has to wear in an affectionate, fatherly tone. 73 …as a coach and as a leader, you got to wear the different hats. But again, that’s one of those things that we knew we were committed to. And so if that meant that at six in the morning or at 5 o’clock in the morning I needed to drive around and go pick up these guys, and coach is gonna pick up those guys so they can get here. Stabler’ believes that he must provide a positive Black male figure for his BMSAs not only in action, but in character as well. “You know, and a true leader is always, and a spinoff from the integrity, one thing I always tell the guys as I’ve never lied to you and I never will. I’m always going to be upfront with you. And so, you know a true leader does have to have integrity (269).” In addition to integrity, Stabler mentioned accountability as another character trait that he embodied as a positive leader of BMSAs. He shared a recent story involving a JV basketball player in his program that was held accountable for his behavior at a game. …just last week, we had a kid that got a technical in a JV game and he was swearing up and down at the players on the other team. I made him have a seat on the bench for the rest of the game but after the game was over, he ended up getting into another altercation. The kid, his parent and his brother end up getting kicked out of the gym. I spoke about it the next day with the athletic director and we decide that he needs to sit out the next game—which happened to be a city game (one of the high profile games of the season) and we knew he would be devastated. So that next day, I brought the entire program together and explained how this player disrespected his school, his family, his team, and himself and would be suspended from playing the city game next week. I told them that if something like this ever happened again, he would be kicked off the team. Because we couldn’t 74 tolerate that kind of behavior. I was sorry to have to use this kid as an example, but I had to get the message across to the players that we were serious about this, and I believe they understood. Unfortunately, this kid’s mom called me that night and said that “I don’t teach my kids to back down from anybody…I don’t believe in turning the other cheek, we didn’t grow up under Martin Luther King.” I responded that this had nothing to do with MLK or Black history, I was simply trying to get this man prepared for life. In addition to behavior and character, Stabler also mentioned the sacrifices that he made as a successful leader of his BMSAs. He spoke about putting in a lot of time during the off- season to give the players workouts, take them to the weight-room, and even provide for more basic needs. You know the time that is put in in the off-season, that you don’t get paid for you know, depending on the kids that we have that that don’t have the family support, you know, for years, since I took this job, I’ve taken kids home and before I drop them off we’ve got to get something to eat. Stabler’ clearly took his role as a leader of BMSAs seriously and was willing to put in the time to make sure that BMSAs’ needs on and off the court were being met. Leadership perceptions of coaches. Stabler verbalized doubts about teachers being successful leaders of BMSAs. “Effective leadership, true leadership, means influence. Teachers do not have that influence. They have no such pull” (10). He stated that teachers don’t make the kinds of efforts towards BMSAs’ needs that would give them the kind of respect they wanted in the classroom. Watts was careful not to be too disparaging about teachers’ lack of effort towards BMSAs, he understood that teachers’ in urban schools were worn out and just didn’t have any 75 more energy to give their students beyond their 8 hours of paid labor. But he could see how a lack of effort on the part of teachers could easily be reciprocated by discerning BMSAs. A lot of educators want to get in the school and then they want to get out. Because they’ve had to deal with the kids whether it’s their attitude or their lack of interest, or, they are wanting to cram at the end. And you know maybe they’re fed up with that, and maybe they feel that they don’t have the support that they need to educate them. So, you know, I don’t, I just want to put my command at seven, be done at three, and I’m out of here. I’m sure that some of their, some of the, the educators attitude has to be, has to be that I’m sure. Watts believes that teachers can be successful leaders of BMSAs in the classroom if genuine efforts towards and interest in their lives outside of the classroom exist. Further, if teachers can acknowledge the coaches’ efforts for the benefit of their mutual BMSAs, coaches would be more likely to reciprocate by extending that effort towards the teachers’ classrooms. There’s a few teachers here that will reach out to me or have reached out in the past and I don’t mean just phys ed teachers. They find out that a kid is on the basketball team and they send me emails or call me and say that one of my players is not doing well in class, he’s being disruptive and can you please talk to him? My response would be “sure, I’ll talk with them, and if it’s ok with you, I’ll come visit the class.” And I’ve done that. And that’s helped me build a pretty good rapport with some of the teachers in the building and the counselors. (11) Watts affectionately remembered his own experiences in high school and lamented that these circumstances were becoming rare. It’s too bad that teachers aren’t coaches anymore because my favorite teachers were my coaches. Even the kids that weren’t student athletes, they seem to 76 gravitate towards those teachers more than other teachers who weren’t interested in sports at all. I think that those teachers that care may be more influential to students. Reflections on this interview. Watts is a tall, chocolate brown Black man with a muscular build and squinty eyes. He is a busy man with a lot of things to do. Initially, he spoke very quickly and answered questions abruptly, almost as if he did not want to give incorrect answers. He slowed down once he began reflecting on his coaching career, and provided thoughtful answers as he got more comfortable with the interviewer and the process. Watts Content analysis. Within-case analysis, Case 1: Dr. Leberman and Coach Stabler dyad. Dr. Leberman understands leadership in political terms. He believes that successful leadership entails the use of power—either the “hard power of force or the soft power of diplomacy.” He has observed that coaches at HS1 typically use the soft power of persuasion to accomplish their goals. Meanwhile, Dr. Leberman sees teachers using their authority in ways that produce fewer effective results because of their arbitrary, threatening nature. Coach Stabler’ understanding of leadership is less political and more familial. He believes that successful leaders will first care about their followers in a way resembles family support. He talks about leadership as a way to exert influence or his BMSAs to make them better people; Coach Stabler then mentions how teachers at HS1 have no such influence because they don’t make the effort to first care about the kids. Although Dr. Leberman and Coach Stabler understand leadership in two totally different ways, the underlying premise of how one can successfully navigate their leadership is essentially the same. Coach Stabler and Dr. Leberman see how pushing a BMSA from the rear toward a certain goal can be more effective that pulling them from the front. In other words, getting 77 BMSAs to internally motivate themselves through the use of incentive (coach approval, meeting team goals, public adoration, personal bests, college scholarships, honor roll) is easier than externally motivating them with the use of threat or consequence (becoming ineligible, suspension, running laps, verbal chastisement, sitting the bench, dismissed from team). At HS1, Dr. Leberman’s understanding of Black male coaches in the lives of BMSAs is informed by observation, academic research, and public forums. He sees how “males operate in the presence of the father” and that coaches are father figures for a lot of their BMSAs. He attended a conference in Washington DC where 40 men in the room were asked who had the most influence in their lives and almost all of them included coaches in their answer. Dr. Leberman also read a study about struggling schools and how they made one change regarding relationship building and it showed positive results. Dr. Leberman is clear that BMSAs need father-figures in their lives and that sports coaches consistently fills this role for many of them. Coaches leadership is essentially built on a pseudo-parental relationship where trust and care are the cornerstone of its’ structure. Watt’s understanding of teachers at HS1 is largely informed by personal experience as a former BMSA and current coach of BMSAs. He believes teachers have no influence over BMSAs because they don’t make efforts to forge meaningful connections to them. He understands that teachers work long days and school and believes they are understandably “fed up” with kids after an 8-hour work day. Coach Stabler laments that teacher burn-out is the reason why there are diminishing numbers of teacher/coaches in inner-city high schools. (And he is right—see G.O.A. evidence). Furthermore, Coach Stabler stated that his favorite teachers when he was in high school were also his coaches—explaining how teacher investment into 78 students can make a difference in student investment into the classroom. But because there aren’t teacher/coaches anymore, teachers are distant and unfamiliar with the lives of his BMSAs. Table 3: Case Study 1, Within-case analysis Self: elevated posture, respected authority, I’m not their friend. You can team up with your fellow teacher to address behavior or academic problems with BMSAs. Coaches: father-figure, male presence, their responsibility to be plugged into the system, out of touch with classroom culture, they care but the basketball/football coaches don’t work in the school. BMSAs: they get shortchanged by the system; they tend to get away with a lot, especially those BMSAs whose coaches don’t work in the building. Communication: could really make a huge difference for BMSAs, not a lot these days because coaches aren’t teachers anymore. Coach’s responsibility to be linked into the system. Authority: spoken, written, informal Power: Hard/soft, political. Different ways to use it. Don’t get real involvement without soft power. Influence: transfer of sports values into the classroom. Leadership: Really needs to be a network of adults that are responsible for those kids. Entails the use of power; Support: Coaches who work in the building are pretty much supportive of teachers. Presence: Coach Boggan “big guy,” his physical presence just calmed the boys. Males operate and grow in the presence of the ‘father’ or male figure. When coaches aren’t in the building, BMSAs ‘fatherless’. Consideration: BMSAs flourish in male presence Relationship building: trust, reliability 1 S H N A M R E B E L . R D PERCEPTIONS BEHAVIORS 79 Table 3 (cont’d) R E L B A T S H C A O C Texting: fake texting to threaten Presence: strongest change occurs with coaches who are in the building Caring: Coaches provide food, rides, support Calling: pick up phone call coach down hall Educating: “It’s a teacher’s job to educate kids regardless of their willingness or unwillingness to participate and that the biggest challenge” and the biggest difference between teachers and coaches. Self: elevated posture, respected authority, committed to BMSAs, don’t have any connection with teachers b/c he works outside the school. Coaches can get BMSAs to go to class, behave. Teachers: don’t have influence, but think they are better than us BMSAs: if BMSAs know that at any moment you could pop up in their classroom, they will toe their end of the line because at the end of the day, they want to play ball and if they get in trouble with me, they jeopardize that. Relationships: it would make a big difference for building connections with teachers if I worked in the building; would make a big difference for BMSAs grades AND behavior if I worked in the building. Leader: integrity & honesty; servant Caring: Don’t coach for the money—give back to kids, wear different hats. Committed to BMSAs, no matter the inconvenience. Relationships: teachers don’t make efforts to building relationships with BMSAs, they are fed up with kids at the end of the day, used to give kickback for having to do progress reports—didn’t think anything was going to come of it (see Mrs. Falder). Presence: my influence would strengthen with players if I worked in the building— they could see me, touch me, hear me— when I do show up in school, their attitude changes immediately. PERCEPTIONS BEHAVIORS 80 Case 2: High School 2 Ideographic profiles. School. High School 2 is a public high school established on the city’s southside in 1959. According to the state data reporting website, HS1 enrolls 1,623 students, with 8% of all Black students at HS2 are proficient in all subjects tested on the STEP (Student Test of Educational Progress). The website did not disaggregate genders at that level, so it was not possible to report specific proficiency percentages for BMSAs at HS2. HS2 has 70 teachers on staff, 7 of whom are teacher/coaches. EHS fields 21 Varsity sports teams. Teacher profile: YBOTO. General background. 66 yr old Black male who was born/raised on a Caribbean island and emigrated to the US after high school. He has been married twice, and has 2 children. Yboto has a bachelor’s and Juris Doctorate degree. He previously served in the US Military and was also a supervisor in a factory job. He was a heralded multi-sport athlete in high school but claimed that academics were equally glorified--something he notices doesn’t NOT happen in American schools. Yboto has been teaching economics, government, and psychology at Everett for 27 years. Leadership philosophy. “Leadership is a defined sense of guidance, to which you can arrive at a defined destination. Leadership or a strong leader will gain the confidence of his or her followers by demonstrating that he or she has the capacity to do that which she is asking of others. And providing a sense of team, being in it together.” 81 Leadership perceptions of self. Yboto is a seasoned veteran of the Lansing School District and well-versed in urban culture and youth. As a Black male, he is able to relate to the struggles of the BMSAs because he has lived them, and this ability to relate gives him firmer ground to stand on as he develops relationships with them. However, Yboto explains that trying to be a leader in the classroom can be a source of frustration for teachers—himself included. “I think teachers overall, I won’t call it so much they resent because it’s not like they resent a coach. I mean, I think they’re kind of annoyed in the sense that they don’t have that influence like a coach.” Similar to Leberman, Yboto understands leadership in terms of influence—and believes that these kids are going to be most influenced by those things that they see/admire/desire the most. In the case of BMSAs, Yboto recognizes that many of these students-athletes who struggle in the classroom want the accolades and attention that sport brings. Therefore, the power and influence belong to the sport coach who can offer that affirmation to a young Black male. “I think it's more frustration because it’s like, we have nothing really to compete with. When we look at academics, there’s no herald. No pageantry. So when we as teachers look at that, it’s frustrating” (734). Meaning, they having nothing to offer BMSAs other than the benefits of “education” that has long since been met with equal parts distrust and disgust by young Black males in urban schools. Leadership perceptions of coaches. Yboto sees how sport coaches play a paternalistic role in the lives of BMSAs. The coach is in more of a father figure role. Especially for young minority boys because the coaches are right there with the boys. If there’s a problem, coach is gonna know about it immediately, cuz it’s gonna affect how they play. (1112) 82 This role allows sport coaches to develop close relationships with BMSAs—something that teachers aren’t really able to do. But Yboto is quick to point out if coaches would maintain open lines of communication and extend their influence into the classroom, it could be a great help. Our football coach is probably one of the few who will touch base with you to find out how his players are doing. He will tell me, Mr. Yboto, these guys are on my squad and keep me abreast of how they’re doing. But he is able to optimize communication with teachers because he works in the building. Yboto is quick to add that those coaches that work in the school building are generally more helpful and accessible to teachers than the coaches who do not. With coaches that work in the building, you’re on the same team, literally meaning you’re in the same house and on the same team. I think for a lot of us, when we look out there and we say, okay, this person’s the wrestling coach or what, you don’t really see them as a colleague. You’re not a colleague cuz I don't you. We don’t do anything together. I don’t see you in any staff meetings. You not in any workshop with me. You’re just somebody who comes in, interacts with this group of kids and you’re gone. You don’t ever come down to my classroom. Your classroom in the gym or whatever arena the sport is going on in. There’s nothing going besides that. Reflections on this interview. Yboto is a vibrant, booming, bald-headed, chocolate- skinned Black man that knows his stuff. Yboto knows the struggle of BMSAs, he openly empathizes with them, and knows how to care about them. Yboto is biliterate in American and African-American culture and easily maneuvers between the two, speaking both languages effectively. Yboto is a realist; he believes that teachers won’t be able to forge the kind of productive relationships with coaches because they are too strapped for time and highly 83 underpaid for the work they already do. He also thinks that many teachers at Everett (who are White, females) will not have the cultural literacy to connect with BMSAs on a level that would be productive. Yboto is genial and open and has the capability to be an extremely effective leader of BMSAs in urban high schools. Coach profile: SUGER. General background. 40-year old Black male who grew up in a mid-sized Midwest city. He is not married, but has 1 child with a long term girlfriend. Suger has a bachelor’s degree and is the owner of a successful sportswear company established in 2002. He was a multi-sport athlete in high school, played D1 basketball at a NCAA mid-major university, played for several European leagues, and also had a short stint in the NBA. Suger has been coaching boys basketball at the same urban high school for the past 6 years. Leadership philosophy. Similar to Coach Stabler, Coach Suger understands that it takes more than just good coaching on the court to be an effective leader of BMSAs. “Being a leader is being respected by your peers and your players because of who you are. It is leading by example. My leadership evolved as I learned how to deal with different personalities and situations” (35). Leadership perceptions of self. Coach Suger believes that he is a caring, understanding leader of BMSAs that can relate to them on a deeper level. Many of the kids that I coached were just like me and grew up without a father, so just even being able to talk to a man was something foreign to them…You won’t always be able to create that connection with every kid, but this day and age, you have to at least try and show the kids you care. It can’t just be--you come in, coach two hours, and then leave. It’s a full-time job. (225) 84 Suger was honest about his humble beginnings as a coach and detailed how his leadership style evolved over time with experience. “I came into coaching dealing with everyone the same way, and you can’t really do that. Eventually, I learned how to treat people differently depending on the person and the situation.” Suger was quick to explain that any leader can have power and control, but a good leader knows how to translate that authority into influence and empowerment. Is control part of what makes a coach successful? Yes and no. Control is part of the equation, but you have to make sure that you put other people in control as well. Coach has the power, but do you use that power solely to achieve your goals or do you use it to empower others? Suger believed that as a leader, he did have power at the school, especially concerning his BMSA. But he was quick to explain that this power was a direct result of the many hours of care and concern he showed for his players, in and out of season. “Even when the kids were out of season and not playing basketball, they would still give us respect because I have taken the time to foster those types of relationships” (143). It is obvious that Suger employed the behaviors of a servant leader to address the many and complicated needs of BMSAs in inner-city high schools. As a result, he was able to make authentic connections powered by the trust that sincere effort and concern engenders. I think having a coach who cares about more than just their own sport, and actually wants to see his BMSAs succeed academically is an absolute MUST these days. Kids aren’t going to respond to you, especially at the high school level, if you don’t create some type of bond or connection. 85 Despite Suger’s influential leadership of BMSAs, he still recognized that the use and benefits of such influence could be greater still if he actually worked in the building where his BMSAs attend classes. I think it should be mandatory for coaches to be teachers, like they do down South. Like I said, last year, when we didn’t have anyone on the basketball staff that worked in the school, it made a huge difference. I think you can help kids more being in the building. If you are in the building all day, then those kids might act right all day, instead of someone like me, just in the building towards the end of the day or not at all during the day. Then you can just build those relationships not only with student-athletes, but with teachers and other students who don’t play sports. Even though I wasn’t one of them, I think at the high school level, coaches should also be required to teach or work in the building. I think an educator is a teacher or professor. Their job would be to give lessons of comprehension. If I’m an educator, I want students to be able to learn and apply the lessons I am teaching. I would consider myself one who is trying to LEARN to be an effective educator. Ultimately, I have found that some of the best coaches are teachers. Coaching IS teaching. (143) When we came into the school and walked the halls, the kids acted right because we got something they want. Leadership perceptions of teachers. Suger verbalized a great respect for teachers and their role as leaders in the high school. “We had some teachers that really supported the kids, and this was positive teacher involvement. Teachers that actually cared about the kids’ future, not just thinking about them as a basketball players, or even not caring at all. Yes, I definitely had some teachers who cared about my players” (149). Furthermore, the same measure of 86 effective leadership by which Suger judged himself—effort and caring-- he applied to teachers as well. “I have found that public high school teachers generally care about students and love their job. My impression is basically more positive than negative.” In dealing with teachers at the high school, Suger believed that teachers cared, but weren’t necessarily able to relate in concrete ways to BMSAs that would foster a level of trust and commitment in the classroom. Suger went on to explain that teachers who cared about BMSAs were more involved with their academic progress and more likely to contact him when there was a problem. “No doubt about it, some teachers did understand the influence I had over my players because they would reach out to me for help.” When teachers contacted him, Suger was more than happy to step in and use his influence as a mechanism to motivate BMSAs to make necessary changes or improve efforts in the classroom. Ultimately, Suger believed that this teamwork between teachers and coaches was a form of shared leadership that benefitted all parties involved. Unfortunately, Suger eventually realized that “There were lots of teachers that resented the power that I had at the school. Even worse, there were other coaches that resented the power of the football and basketball coaches because our teams were good and most of their teams were bad. There was this resentment for the success of the basketball and football programs” (149). And the teachers that resented the coaches’ powers were usually those same teachers that had the most conflicts with BMSAs in the classroom. Suger believes that the hard power of authority that teachers wield over BMSAs can be used in different ways. I’ve seen examples of teachers using their influence for both positive and negative reasons. Teachers that perceive athletes a certain type of way can use their power to make a player ineligible, for the simple fact that they don’t like the student-athlete, 87 the coach, or have some preconceived notion about Black males. On the other hand, you can have a teacher who uses their power to keep a student eligible. It can go both ways. (131). Reflections on this interview. Content analysis. Within-case analysis, Case 2: Mr. Yboto and Coach Suger dyad. Mr. Yboto believes leadership is a partnership. He defines leadership as a “defined sense of guidance where the leader gains the confidence of his followers by demonstrating that he has the capacity to do that which he is asking him followers to do.” Mr. Yboto sees himself as a leader in the classroom because he makes extra efforts to stay connected to his students and he sees this effort reciprocated by students in their classroom. “Good teaching is like being an active participant instead of a passive observer, right? So I’m always around them. I’ll pat them on the shoulder and tell them ‘Damn boy, you’re rocking it today’.” He also respects the BMSAs as individuals and appeals to their other goals in life (girls, money) as a means to motivate them in the classroom. It is this extra effort that maintains a healthy partnership—something Mr. Yboto believes is lacking between teachers and coaches. Coach Suger understands leadership as an action that increases confidence in others of their ability to perform a task. Similar to Mr. Yboto, he maintains a mutual respect between himself and his players by allowing them to make decisions for and take control of the team in certain circumstances. He admits that he was not a great leader when he started coaching, “I would consider myself one who is trying to LEARN to be an effective educator,” but now understands that BMSAs require individualized care and differentiated instruction—something he believes that teachers are trying to do, but not always hitting the mark. 88 Mr. Yboto observes that coaches play a father-figure role in the lives of the BMSAs at HS2. It is in the parental role that Mr. Yboto believes coaches of BMSAs could extend their influence to reinforce academic standards. His long-standing relationship with the football coach is evidence of that: “Coach Carruthers is one of the few coaches who will touch bases with me. He will personally come to my classroom, give me a list of all his players, and tell me to keep him abreast of their performance.” Mr. Yboto acknowledges that this communication from Carruthers is effective because it intimates a relationship between adults to which BMSAs are accountable. Table 4: Case Study 2, Within-case analysis i h b l t u b s e t e l h t a - t n e d u t s t u o b a e r a c y l l a r e n e g s r e h c a e t t a h t s e v e i l e b r e g u S h c a o C d l u o w t a h t y a w a n i r e w o p t a h t e s u o t s e h c a o c h t i l i a m e d l u o w t a h t s r e h c a e t w e f a e v a h d i d I “ t a h t d e t t i w k r o w y l i r a s s e c e n t ’ n o d m d a e H . s A S M B t i f e n e b f h i d O T O B Y . R M h f i h h Self: Respected leader, gives a lot of effort to communicate with students, let them know he cares. We don’t see coaches who don’t work in the building as colleagues because we never see them, talk to them. Coaches: Coaches are not seen as ‘educators’, because BMSAs don’t value or prioritize that identity in coaches. They are seen more as caring adults, provider. Dual-role, mentor. Special coaches like Carruthers that really make a difference. Father-figure. BMSAs: they like him because he makes efforts to get to know them beyond the classroom Communication: Easy to talk to coaches work in the building—woven into the school network. Coaches aren’t in bldg. out of touch with academic identity of their BMSAs Authority: Power: When teachers look down the pike, for many of us, we become perplexed because we cannot compete with the draw of sports. Because let’s face it, all I have to offer kids is academics. Influence: You hear it all the time around campus—“talk to coach and get a list of his student-athletes” and it’s simply because they exert some degree of influence over them that could carry over into the classroom. Leadership: “we are in this together”(sense of team)—must have confidence of followers—demonstrate YOU can do what you are asking them to do BMSAs: Calling: Our football coach is one of the few who will touch base with you to find out how his players on doing. Basketball coach is former student of mine, don’t know his number, never speak to him. Consideration: Relationship building: Carruthers is able to optimize communication with teachers because he works in the building. Texting: 89 PERCEPTIONS BEHAVIORS Table 4 (cont’d) R E G U S H C A O C Presence: T& C live in the same house and on the same team. When you’re on staff and a coach—impact is immediate. If not, there is a gap in communication and relationship that kids can take advantage of. Caring: Self: must care about more than just your own sport, have to care about GRADES & SCHOOL. I have power and influence as a coach at my school. Teachers: some care, some don’t; teachers resent me for having a lot of power in the school. BMSAs: they know that sports will get them attention, possibly money, a college scholarship, a ticket out of their current situation—how could the remote possibilities of an education compete with that? Leader: confident, learn from mistakes, take criticism, accept failure Presence: should be mandatory for coaches to be teachers in the school; if coach in building all day, BMSAs act right all day; you can build relationship with teachers and non-athletes. Relationship building: If I sat down with more teachers and really got to know them, they would probably have better opinion of me Negativity: My kids let me know that teachers are talking shit about me— Accountability: The BMSAs aren’t stupid. They know when they can run game on teachers, and they know when they can’t. If you develop a good enough relationship with your kids, you won’t have to worry as much about them acting crazy in school, because they will care about your approval. Consistency: I have 5 athletic directors in the five years that I have been at HS2, so there you go. PERCEPTIONS BEHAVIORS 90 Case 3: High School 3 Ideographic profiles. School. High School 3 is a public high school established on the city’s westside established in 1943. According to the state data reporting website, HS 3 enrolls 700 students, with 8% of all Black students at EHS are proficient in all subjects tested on the STEP (Student Test of Educational Progress). The website did not disaggregate genders at that level, so it was not possible to report specific proficiency percentages for BMSAs at HS3. HS3 has 70 teachers on staff, 7 of whom are teacher/coaches. HS3 fields 21 Varsity sports teams, with neither Football nor Basketball Varsity coaches working in the school at the time of data collection. Teacher profile: FALDER. General background. 42 year old White female who was born/raised in a small Midwestern city. She states that she never really interacted with people of color growing up and there were no Black people where she was from. Married with no children. Falder has her Bachelors and Masters degrees. Falder hates sports, but admitted that she would let the football players cheat off of her in high school if they were cute. Falder has been a teacher her entire adult life. She had brief teaching experiences at private and parochial schools, but the majority of her teaching career, 19 years, has been at public, inner city schools. Falder currently teaches American lit, World lit, speech, and drama at urban high school, where she has been for the last decade. Leadership philosophy. Falder spoke about leadership in terms of power dynamics. “Leadership is basically to be a power holder in a group, or someone they look up to in terms of power--good or bad, but power. She believes that her ability to be a powerful leader of BMSAs depends on the sport season and the coach. Falder thinks arbitrary authority is the only 91 sustainable approach to take towards leadership of BMSAs because her ability to utilize the support of the coach is only effective for a few months during their season. Leadership perceptions of self. Falder believes that a teacher is “…a mandatory leader, a mandatory power holder.” She does not perceive herself as having authentic connections to BMSAs—she understands her ability to effective lead BMSAs is scaffolded by the hard power her teaching position affords. Falder explains herself as a leader of BMSAs in very limited terms—“Once the season is over, you lose the power”(483). In other words, the ability to wield power over BMSAs is only possible when she has them in class and can pass/fail them. Mandatory leadership affects student-athletes, but it depends on the season. Because there are some, and I’ve seen it during football season, where the student-athletes want to pass during football season, but if it’s not football season and they’re not in another sport, they don’t care. And they’ll fail and they don’t care about who is leading the class cuz they only want to have the good grade for when they’re in season. I’ve watched that a million times. Or they’ll behave, even like be a better person during the season cuz you’ll call the coach. If you don’t have that power to call coach because the season is over, you can forget it. (438) Falder explained that the limited power she does have is strengthened with support from BMSA coaches, especially coaches that are in the building and accessible. “If the basketball coach was in the building I think there’d be more of a fear level there cuz I could say, oh, my god, I’m going to tell your coach. Like I’m gonna go walk out of this class and I’m going to go tell your coach. I’m gonna send you to him and he can deal with you” (1264). Falder is very clear about the seasonal nature of her authority “I am a successful leader of student-athletes, but only in season” 92 (588). So she does believe she is an educational leader, she does not perceive herself as one with much power to effect academic or behavioral change for BMSAs. Leadership perceptions of coaches. Falder explained that teachers and coaches can be leaders, but they have different forms of power and different ways of using it “…teachers are mandatory and coaches are seasonal” (549). Her feelings about coaches are mixed; she is positive about one football coach because he has been “selectively” supportive of her in the classroom, but then criticizes other football coaches from the same program because she thinks they ignore BMSAs poor grades/behavior. …there’s some coaches, like, I wouldn’t send anyone to Coach Campbell. I don’t think he’s scary and I don’t think he would punish them. Some of the coaches in this building, you just wouldn’t send kids to. (1297) She perceives sports coaches to be effective leaders, but usually only about the athletic aspect of a BMSA’s identity. Furthermore, she believes that coach’s concern is a selfish function of his own coaching identity. “But I don’t think he cares about student-athletes out of season, unless he knows that kid is gonna be playing next year” (518). Falder even provided an example of a wrestling teacher/coach in the building who would do anything for his wrestlers—give them rides home, feed them—but did not show this same level of attention to academics. “I’ve got a couple of wrestlers that are failing, and have failed courses, and they’re still wrestling.” (632) She thinks that sports coaches are leaders who are powerful enough to extend that fear into the classroom, but that this possibility is much more realistic for coaches who work in the building. I don’t have any communication with coaches, I don’t even know who the coaches are; but I think it is important to know who your coaches are, regardless if they work in or out of the building so that we could use that fear tactic, sometimes, or let them know your 93 kid, this kid is failing. So what are you gonna do about it? Are you gonna play him? (1125) Falder acknowledges the powerful leadership that sport coaches command over BMSAs but doesn’t feel supported or empowered to make and maintain connections with coaches that would enable her to tap into that power and utilize it as a tool in the classroom. Reflections on this interview. Falder is a bespectacled White woman with dirty blonde hair and a hippie style. She is bright, sharp-witted, and clearly verbalizes her frustrations with the school administration as well as the coaches. Falder is jaded by her job and frustrated at the lack of academic support she gets from the school. As a result, she cares less about her own performance in the classroom. Falder did not seem to understand that her mediocre performance could negatively affect students’ motivation and performance in the classroom. While she understands the urban high school environment, Falder does not have the cultural capital to effectively connect with BMSAs. Coach profile: XAVIER. General background. 51 year old Black male who grew up in a large, Southern, US city. He states that he never had any interaction with White people growing up, and didn’t interact with them until high school. He is married with 2 children. Xavier has a bachelor’s degree, has worked 13 years at a youth camp for troubled teens and has been a director of basketball programming at a local athletic club for the past decade. He has coached boys’ youth and Varsity sports for the past 24 years, 18 of which have been in an urban context. Xavier was a multi-sport athlete and won a national basketball championship at a perennial powerhouse high school. He played D1 basketball at a Big Ten university and also played professionally in Europe for 14 years. 94 Leadership philosophy. “My definition of leadership is influence. Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest leaders ever in this world. He was a negative leader, but he has an amazing influence on other people. To me leadership is about influence. What can I do to influence someone in a positive way or negative way”? Leadership perceptions of self. Xavier is very clear about his role as a leader of BMSAs. This is what I told the kids, I said you know what? You belong to your mother father— they raise you, they feed you—I got that. I understand that. But when you come to the gym, you belong to me. If you don’t want to belong to me, don't put this jersey on. What does that mean? That means on I’m gonna help you as a person, as a student, and an athlete. I’m gonna help you be as well-rounded as you can possibly be. That went beyond just basketball season. Like Watts and Ferguson, Xavier is a Black male who has been through many of the struggles that their players are going through—and this ability to relate in concrete, personal ways strengthens the level of trust and willingness to work hard that BMSAs typically reserve for those special figures in their lives that matter the most. Xavier understands the power that he has as a leader of BMSAs, but points out that this power is a direct result of his effort and commitment to them. You know what I used to do? When I first got to HS3, the first thing I did was make sure the kids had drinks every day after practice that first week. I went to the store and I bought 50 boxes of Capri Suns—and I had a refrigerator in my office. And I would kill ‘em in practice. When practice was over, I’d say go get some drinks out of the fridge. And they’d be all like “aww, thanks! Thanks coach man! Thanks coach!” Those drinks were nice and cold. And you know what happened after that? They were always willing 95 to work much harder. It is a small thing to show that you care, but it goes a long way. Small gestures can produce big results. (318) Xavier understands himself as a leader who gives enormous amounts of effort to the basketball program and expects the same from his players. He sees the value of caring for his BMSAs outside of their athletic identity and believes these kids need to see and hear a strong father figure to hold them accountable for their academic success. “I know that I’m a leader in my household, I’m a leader in my job, I’m a leader when I step into the coaching arena. People are watching everything I say and everything I do” (224). Xavier believes that the values of integrity, hard work, and discipline he instills in his BMSAs can translate into classroom success and build a strong foundation for future success. Similarly to Ferguson, Xavier laments that he doesn’t actually work at the school with his BMSAs. He feels that his leadership and influence would be even stronger if he had easier access and closer proximity to his team. “I would be even more effective if I was in the building. I thought I was pretty effective with the time I had and what I did. But maybe I could be more effective on the academic side, more supportive academically if I was in the building.” He explained how his presence in the building not only affected his own BMSAs, but other students as well. When I walked into HS3, I could feel the tentacles go up on my students. Not just on my guys, but on students in general “oh,here comes Coach X, better watch out’. My own son told me this. This is how I found that out. He said that “everybody is scared of you Dad.” I’m like-what? Why are they scared of me? He said “I don’t know Dad, you just walk around with that mean face.” So I scare the students when I walk in the building— and not just the athletes. The funny thing is, I wasn’t even trying to do that. (439) 96 Xavier’s influence extended not only to his BMSAs, but to the general student body and overall culture of the school. Furthermore, staff and administration, aware that this power dynamic existed, often sought Coach Xavier’s intervention for school issues that had nothing to do with the basketball program or his players. To Xavier’s credit, he was always willing to help out wherever needed and believed that being a successful leader of young people meant working far beyond the lines of the court and long after the buzzer sounded. The idea of being a father figure to many of his BMSAs is not any different than the responsibility he feels towards his own children. If you're a coach or a teacher and you really care about a kid and you see this kid struggling in class, why wouldn't it be your responsibility? Why wouldn’t it? If that was your child, wouldn’t you want to do something about it? One of my former players, Terry Burton, has been out of school since 2010 and he still calls me and asks me for stuff. I will always take care of them. Leadership perceptions of teachers. Xavier believes that teachers have the ability to be successful leaders of BMSAs. “A teacher can be a leader depending on they wield their influence and I think influence can be a learned behavior.” But Xavier also noted that if a teacher isn’t motivated to learn about the kids as individuals before they try to assert their authority, this attempt at leadership is bound to fail. Teachers don’t have influence over the student-athletes. Those kids are very resistant to that type of education or the way teachers are doing it. And to me, that’s on the teacher. Because you should set the ground rules right from day one. When you are influencing someone or educating them, they are looking for guidance from you right away and if you don’t show those kids that you care, they will know immediately… 97 Xavier was adamant that teachers are accountable for their efforts (or lack thereof) in the classroom. He believes that if teachers can be genuine and honest with their BMSAs, their efforts to connect will be rewarded in the classroom “…if kids know you care they will do more for you.” However, Xavier explained that “…a lot of times the teacher was not interested in having a relationship with me or the student. I don't know why. I have my theories. Some people just don't care.” Coach X felt that because many teachers didn’t care enough to dig deeper into the lives and truths of their BMSAs, their ability to be effective leaders would always be hindered. Xavier also strongly believed that leadership isn’t just about caring and effort, but confidence and self-efficacy. This is what I always tell people: If there’s five dogs in the room, they don’t sit around and talk to each other. But everybody knows who the top dog is and they don’t fuck with him. It’s the same thing with the teacher. The kids come in and they will know right away if you have command of your classroom. Or if you know what you’re talking about. BMSAs aren’t stupid, so if you keep it real and don’t try to be something or someone you’re not, you will gain credibility and respect with the first couple minutes of walking in the door. (276) Xavier explained that strong leaders of BMSAs in inner city high schools must do more than just care. They must be confident in their ability to lead and have enough swagger to get the job done. In the case of urban high school teachers, many White female teachers may feel intimidated or unsure of themselves in the classroom, and given that the least proficient teachers are most represented in underserved communities, this scenario is certainly possible. Xavier also considered the possibility that teachers may perceive BMSAs and their coaches as a threat to the 98 overall classroom culture—especially if the dumb jock narrative exists in their culture. “My personal dealings with teachers, some of them, they don’t care to even talk to me as a coach because their first impression of me is, oh, you’re just there to rescue the student-athletes.” Content analysis. Case 3: Mrs. Falder and Coach Xavier dyad. Mrs. Falder believes leadership is just a function of power at HS3. According to her, “leadership just means to be a powerholder in a group.” Mrs. Falder conceptualizes leadership in a very transactional sense; she is an effective power-holder at High School 3for BMSAs, but only during the season when she is able to mete out passing or failing grades. Mrs. Falder actually calls herself a “mandatory power-holder” and says it with disdain. She knows that students are required by law to be present in her classroom, while their spot on a football or basketball team is a highly prized, widely coveted position to be earned. The difference in motivation for these BMSAs to participate in school versus their desire to succeed in sport directly affects the level of power afforded to teachers and coaches and the style of leadership they adopt. Coach Xavier views leadership as an expression of influence. “Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest leaders ever in this world. He was a negative leader, but he had an amazing influence on other people. To me, leadership is about influence.” Coach Xavier lives out his leadership philosophy on a daily basis in multiple different roles in his life. He sees himself as a leader at home, on the job, as a coach, and a leader that represents Black males across the country. He understands leadership in physical terms as well as psychological terms and describes how being a 6’6” Black man commands respects in many different spaces. Specifically, as a coach of young Black males, Coach Xavier views leadership as a shared, transformational endeavor that requires their earned respect and trust. 99 Mrs. Falder believes that “coaches tend to have a lot of power,” especially the football and basketball coaches at HS3. She knows that BMSAs have respect for their coaches, to the point where she would threaten to call their coaches and they would “get their act together.” Mrs. Falder acknowledged that the threat tactic wouldn’t really work for other sports mainly because she has no idea who their coaches are or how to contact them. Mrs. Falder noted that the football coach was extremely effectively threat to use with the BMSAs because not only did he coach the most popular sport in the school, but he worked in the school as a behavior specialist. On the other hand, Mrs. Falder also noted that coaches have also undermined the little authority she did have in the classroom by “making bad things go away.” When asked to explain, Mrs. Falder stated that one her students, (the quarterback) was caught smoking marijuana, but the football coach made sure that the BMSA didn’t get into any real trouble or face any serious consequences. Mrs. Falder explained that coaches can use their power for “good or bad” depending on whatever serves their best interest—which does not seem like a good example of leadership to her. Coach Xavier had an equally disparaging opinion about teacher leadership at HS3. He observed that BMSAs are very resistant to teachers’ instruction and guidance because teachers present themselves and the information in a certain way that doesn’t resonate with their BMSA audience. Coach Xavier believed that teachers have the ability to be good leaders, but they just don’t care to do so—and he “has theories” as to why. Coach Xavier wouldn’t elaborate on his theories other than to say that some teachers were “unflexible and judgmental,” which made them unsuccessful leaders of BMSAs, in his opinion. Coach Xavier admitted that he could have provided more support to teachers at HS3 and lamented his lack of effort to increase communication with teachers. By his own admission, Coach Xavier confirmed Mrs. Falder’s 100 position that powerful coaches aren’t always extending a helping hand into the classroom where the coach’s influence could have a positive academic impact. Reflections on this interview. Xavier is a 6’6, chocolate brown Black man with a very muscular build and a deep voice. He has a great sense of humor and easily laughs at himself. Xavier has a tendency to repeat specific things that he is very passionate about, and his voice gets louder and deeper as his emotions rise. Xavier is a survivor; he was raised in the dangerous inner-city of a very large city and managed to get himself a full-ride scholarship to a major university. These life experiences manifest themselves in the confidence he exudes and excellence he demands from his BMSAs. Despite his intimidating size and cold stare, Xavier is actually a soft-hearted do-gooder that places the values of caring and connection at the top of his priorities as a leader. Table 5: Case Study 3, Within-case analysis PERCE PTIONS 3 S H s i s y l a n a e s a c - n i h t i W , 3 y d u t S e s a C R E D L A F . S R M : 6 e l b a T BEHAV IORS Self: Mandatory power holder—ONLY during sports season. Coaches: don’t care about BMSAs unless they are in season, or unless they know the kid is going to be playing next year, they will keep tabs on him in the off season. Coaches don’t check on player eligibility because they don’t want to know and have to bench a player. BMSAs: only care about grades if they are in season and they want to have grades to stay eligible. Or behave and be a better person during season cuz you can call coach. Once season over, BMSA don’t care if I call coach. Communication: Don’t talk to coaches—nobody gives us that info. Hard when coaches don’t work in the building—even less chance of talking to them. Authority: Students are required to be in school, so teachers have a mandatory authority over BMSAs. But it isn’t really effective because it wasn’t GIVEN by our followers (BMSAs) Power: Fear tactic. FB/BB coaches have a LOT of it-- Influence: Leadership: BMSAs: Act like assholes. A lot of football, basketball players in my speech class and they all act like assholes—that what I hate about that class. Eligibility: When I see one of my students being allowed to play even though he is failing it makes me mad. Don’t bring eligibility reports anymore-- Presence: Coach Boggan “big guy,” his physical presence just does something to the boys Calling: If you had a problem with a BMSA, you could call Boggan and he would help you out. Consideration: 101 Table 5 (cont’d)_ Commitment: This is what I told the kids: I’m gonna help you as a person, as a student, and an athlete. I’m gonna help you be as well-rounded as you possibly can be. That went beyond just basketball season. Communication: Teachers won’t talk to me because their first impression of me is that I’m just there to save BMSAs. BUT they will use me as a threat for BMSAs, almost like “wait till your daddy gets home.” I got TONS of calls from teachers, security, administrators, and parents on a daily basis about my BMSAs Relationship building: Teachers need to feel like they are doing this for a reason, and that something is actual going to come of it. (example of Henderson) Texting: Presence: Accountability: l’m tired of stressing out over all this, all these eligibility issues that no one follows through with. BMSAs: how they act in core classes vs. electives is totally different ballgame. Self: If I was working in the building, I could help make BMSAs more accountable and I could be there right away to support teachers with classroom issues. Teachers: don’t have influence over student-athletes because of the way that they are teaching and trying to get students to learn. To me—that’s on them. BMSAs: if you don’t show these kids you care, they will know immediately and dismiss you -BMSAs perceive that lack of interaction between teachers and coaches and know they can exploit that gap in communication to their benefit Leadership: Adolf Hitler example; leaders are made, not born Urban culture: basketball is a strongly respected entity in urban areas. People view successful sports teams and coaches as godly in the inner-city. Being a high-profile coach gets tons of respect because of the inner-city culture that idolizes him. Relationship building: I tried as hard as I could to have good relationships w teachers in the building, but I do have a full time job, Caring: some teachers just don’t care. Buy kids food, ask about home life, use consistent discipline. Presence: Teachers/administrators don’t bother to come to their BMSAs sports events. I know my presence definitely had a big influence on school PERCE PTIONS BEHAV IORS R E I V A X H C A O C Cross-Case Analysis While the leadership profiles of teachers and coaches within each high school provided a specific understanding of each participant’s beliefs and behaviors of leadership regarding themselves and their colleagues, there was also merit in looking beyond the level of individual schools and examining responses across coaches and teachers at the district level regarding key questions and/or issues pertaining to leadership. A summary of the cross-case profiles is presented in Table 6. 102 Cross-case 1: The teachers. Teachers across all three schools expressed their struggles with leadership and how they felt they could not compete with what sport and coaches had to offer BMSAs. Each teacher identified effective leadership as a function of something different, but noted that the “something different” –whether it was presence, power, or communication-- was not something they could or should offer. Mr. Yboto knew that even though he was a respected ‘educator’, he could not offer BMSAs relevant goals like those they received from their coaches that would inspire internal motivation to succeed. Mrs. Falder struggled to navigate the issues of power and influence in the classroom; she understood effective leadership of BMSAs as a function of control, and noted that the little power she did have was arbitrary and seasonal. Dr. Leberman easily verbalized why he struggled to connect with BMSAs as aneffective leader; as a teacher, he was not able to sustain the type of personal relationships that coaches did with their BMSAs. Presence. The teachers believed that effective leadership of BMSAs was powered by the male presence of their coaches. They understood that many of their BMSAs came from single- parent homes and that their coach often represented a father-figure in their lives. Dr. Leberman noted that “young males operate and grow in the presence of the father or male figure,” and Mrs. Falder explained that her Varsity football coach is a “big guy whose physical presence just calms the boys down.” Additionally, Mr. Yboto claimed that the strongest influences of male leadership were by those coaches who actually worked in the building—something the teachers were all in agreement about. Teachers found that coaches who do not work in the building often have considerably less power than those coaches who do, unless that coach has made significant efforts to stay connected to the pulse of the school and its educators. 103 Power. Dr. Leberman was quick to explain how the power dynamics of leadership worked at High School 1 with the teachers and coaches. He stated that coaches have the soft power of diplomacy, where they earn respect from BMSAs through shared leadership and control, which is similar to a transformational style of leadership. Conversely, teachers wield the hard power of authority over BMSAs that is arbitrarily demanded by law. This indicates a transactional relationship where teachers mete out passing grades that maintain player eligibility while BMSAs provide effort and acceptable behavior in the classroom. The teachers agreed that Varsity football and basketball coaches had the most power and influence over BMSAs. All three teachers even agreed that some coaches could be supportive of them in the classroom, but that support was only as strong as their relationship and communication with coaches. Communication. Teachers were clear that communication was crucial for relationship building with coaches and necessary as a means to motivate/control BMSAs classroom conduct. Dr. Leberman noted that maintaining open lines of communication with coaches, even just a quick text or phone call, is often all it takes to improve BMSAs academic performance. Unfortunately, there is no system within the district to facilitate that type of support. Mr. Yboto believed it “fell into the athletic director’s bailiwick” to engineer structures within the school that enable consistent communication between teachers and coaches. Teachers expressed that the onus of communication should lie within the coaches’ purview, if for nothing else than sheer numbers. Basketball coaches typically have 12-15 players on a Varsity basketball squad and football coaches field roughly 52-55 football players on the Varsity team. Teachers might see in excess of 300 students in a day, which makes their argument that coaches should be reaching out to them instead of vice versa, quite compelling. 104 Table 6: Summary of Cross-case profiles—Teachers PERCEPTIONS TEACHERS BEHAVIORS SELF COACHES SELF COACHES Authoritative, authority Hard power, mandatory participation by BMSAs Not respected in some ways, respected in other ways Powerless, except for ability to pass/fail BMSAs and even then, it might not matter depending on if it is a core or elective class. Can only be a successful leader during the season Soft power Influence Father figure, mentor Respected Distant, not accessible Depends on if they work in/out bldg. Have much power, don’t always let teachers access that power Some coaches do not have power, BMSAs will not listen to them either Reach out to coaches Frustration, because of no way to motivate BMSAs Discipline-- Active participant vs. passive observer Ca not be involved like coaches can Collaborative learning techniques Do not ever communicate with coaches Use coaches as a scare tactic—not always successful Cannot transfer lessons from the field to the classroom—why?? Unsuccessful at leveraging hard power many times Getting BMSAs out of trouble Keeping BMSAs from punishment Preferential treatment for BMSAs Will not always respond when a teacher does reach out Will send out emails/eligibility lists, depending on the coach Coaches who work in the building are much more accessible and willing to communicate with teachers about a student 105 Cross-case 2: The coaches. Coaches across all three schools expressed their struggles with communication and verbalized feelings of remorse that they didn’t do more to reach out to their mutual BMSAs. Each coach identified effective leadership as a function of something different, but noted that the “something different” –whether it was presence, power, or communication--was something they believed was their duty to fulfill. Coach Stabler was adamant that he played multiple roles in the lives of his BMSAs, from taxi driver to chef. Coach Xavier identified that his physical presence alone was a source of control over his kids, but more importantly, he noticed how that presence translated to power even to the general student body. Coach Suger described a situation where he left his day job and helped de-escalate a mental health situation with one of his BMSAs; despite the fact that he wasn’t professionally trained to handle these types of situations, the simple fact that he cared enough to leave work and deal with the issue was an effective form of leadership that strengthened the bonds of trust between himself and his players. Relationships. The Varsity football and basketball coaches agreed that their ability to foster meaningful relationships with their BMSAs created fertile ground for them to “grow” their players into well-rounded citizens of their communities. Coaches identified the many hats they wore to support this growth to include taxi driver, counselor, tutor, and chef. Regardless of the service provided, the coach’s effort itself was the foundation for trust and respect in his BMSA relationships. Once the foundation was established, all three coaches identified that their relationships often progressed to that of a father-figure, especially to those BMSAs who grew up without one. It is within this powerful paternal relationship that coaches have the most power to influence BMSAs’ choices and behavior; whether they choose to extend this power into 106 educational realms and why they would do so are largely dependent on their relationships with the teachers. Commitment. In this study, the data indicate that coaches understand commitment entirely differently than teachers. Coaches’ approach to commitment is relationship-based and student-centered while teachers understand commitment as professionally based and outcome oriented. In other words, coaches focus on the student himself and teachers focus on the outcomes that student produces in the classroom. This makes sense, because teachers’ livelihoods are directly related to those test scores, while most inner-city coaches do not have that same pressure. Coach Xavier acknowledged that he makes a commitment to address the needs of the whole student-not just the athlete. “This is what I told the kids—‘I’m gonna help you as a person, as a student, and an athlete. I’m gonna help you be as well-rounded as you can possibly be.’” Similarly, Coach Suger explained how his commitment to BMSAs resulted in him having “…lots of power and influence as a coach at my school because I care about more than just my own sport. I care about the kids’ grades and schooling. . .” This notion that the coaches of the district were committed to BMSAs in ways completely removed from sport helped explain why their relationships with and influence over BMSAs was so strong. 107 Table 7: Summary of Cross-case profiles—Coaches SELF PERCEPTIONS TEACHERS COACHES BEHAVIORS SELF • 108 • Exceptional leaders of BMSAs • Role model, father figure, taxi driver, therapist • Wear different hats I have power and influence as a coach • • Basketball is really important in urban areas, urban basketball teams and their coaches are glorified, revered • Do not make effort to forge relationships with BMSAs, especially because there are not many teacher/coaches in buildings anymore • Overworked, tired, burned out, fed up • They do not look at coaches like colleagues • They do not respect what coaches do— they think they are better than us • Depending on the teacher, some were great at bonding with BMSAs, others bad • Have the potential to be an effective teacher or leader, but have to be willing to extend themselves and be vulnerable. • Maybe made them dislike BMSAs • Teachers understand the power/influence that coaches have over student-athletes, because they reach out all the time. • Volunteering their time, not for $$$ • Pay for BMSAs to eat, shoes, participate camps • Must care for ‘whole’ child, not just athlete • Being in the building make a difference to BMSAs academically and behaviorally • Make more of an effort to contact teachers. I tried hard with the teachers, but full-time • job • Being absent from the building does affect coaches’ relationship with teachers and BMSAs I have a strong influence on my players and other students in the building. Table 7 (cont’d) TEACHERS • Teachers think progress reports- waste of time • Teachers resent coaches for their power • Teachers talk shit about coaches • Some just don’t care. • The last principal never came to any games during our season, just the final game of the playoffs. Hierarchical Analysis Common characteristics across teachers and coaches. Three higher order themes of leadership—caring, control, and communication—were consistently reported across all participants in the study. They operationalized leadership in clear, behavioral terms, and defined those behaviors as mostly transactional in nature, with some transformational behaviors occurring with sport coaches and their BMSAs. Caring. Caring emerged as the strongest aspect of leadership for coaches. They believed that a caring educator is more successful than an apathetic one—regardless of the context. Coaches described their own leadership of BMSAs as caring actions, words, and deeds. Care is an unspoken but understood dynamic of relationship-building that coaches alluded to when describing their leadership style—trust would not be built nor motivation instilled if BMSAs did not believe that their coaches really cared about them. Coaches seemed to understand that a more holistic approach to student-athlete development was the most effective way to achieve true athletic or academic gains. Hence, coaches were willing to go out to the homes of their players, provide for basic needs, listen with a sympathetic ear, and go to bat for their BMSAs-- just like a father would. Teachers understood care on a more superficial level—which makes sense given that teachers must deal with hundreds of students a day and don’t have the time or energy to give 109 special attention to each one. While Dr. Leberman and Mr. Yboto could easily appreciate how and why sports coaches were so powerful in the lives of BMSAs and even to the larger community in general, their own focus of leadership leaned more towards that characteristic that would benefit them in the classroom—control. Control. Control emerged as the strongest aspect of leadership for teachers. Research has long identified classroom control as an issue of contention for teachers, and this urban district was no different. Coaches agreed that control was necessary in the classroom, but control without sincere care would be futile. Furthermore, using authority over the bodies of BMSAs without first consistently caring about their minds was not a legitimate use of control—it only reinforced the notion that the use of hard power is limited in its staying power and effectiveness. Even while teachers could comprehend the importance of a caring leader, to them, having control of their classroom was of utmost importance and continually sought to address leadership--others and their own--in those terms. Communication. The basis of every successful organization is effective communication. This principle is especially true in inner-city, under-served schools where the heavy bureaucracy of public education weighs down the informal but effective network of communication in a school culture that actually attends to the daily grind of student learning. In other words, paperwork might take forever to make change official, but a simple text message will take to seconds to implement that same change in places where it will actually be used. Surprisingly, it was not that teachers or coaches were refusing to communicate with each other or did not want to, it was because there were no formal chains or system set up to make that possible. Mr. Yboto points out a situation at HS2 where he has no idea who the wrestling coach is and no realistic way in which that could actually happen. “I don’t know any wrestling 110 person who’s on staff, so the only way I would get into contact with them is if they came to me, because I’m pretty sure I’m not taking that extra mile to get into contact with them.” Mrs. Falder concurred, with the caveat that consistent communication with coaches would be an extra form of support in the classroom and a means to hold coaches accountable for their players. I don’t have any communication with coaches, I don’t even know who the coaches are; but I think it is important to know who your coaches are, regardless if they work in or out of the building so that we could use that fear tactic, sometimes, or let them know your kid, this kid is failing. You could ask them--What are you gonna do about it? Are you gonna play him? Conversely, if BMSAs sense that there is zero communication between teachers and coaches, their willingness to cooperate in the classroom is less likely. Mr. Yboto noted that any time he leveled a warning to BMSAs about contacting a coach that never reached out to him or did not work in the school, their response was typically something like, “Good luck! That coach is only here part time. When are you gonna talk to him?” Teachers agreed that those coaches who also worked in the school building in some capacity were much more effective at being in progress throughout the season. Interestingly, when participants were nudged away from the lofty, inoffensive musings of leadership theory to the dirty, exhausting practice of everyday leadership behavior, real tensions and anger emerged. In other words, as teachers and coaches were able to dig deeper into their own practices and those of coaches, inner resentments surfaced and participants explained how everything from personal grudges to past experiences caused discord amongst different leaders in the school. 111 Dr. Leberman explained how a double-standard existed for BMSAs and that teachers got the short end of that stick. “There is something that’s going on in the schools that doesn’t make sense: we’ve got these athletes and they are building teams with this sense of honor and commitment in the athletic realm but it is not being maximized or carried over in the academic spaces they occupy.” He went on the describe an invisible wall that separates the identity and behavior of student versus athlete: “all of a sudden, behavior that would be completely unacceptable with coach becomes funny or entertaining to other students in the classroom environment.” Dr. Leberman noted that because there isn’t any real sense of teamwork amongst teachers and coaches at HS1, efforts to streamline discipline and accountability for BMSAs was futile. Similarly, and angrily, Mrs. Falger explained that it makes her frustrated “…when I see one of my students being allowed to play even though he is failing my class…” and it makes her want to ask coaches why they don’t do weekly grade reports anymore. She believes that they stopped bringing the grade reports around because the “coach doesn’t want to know that his best players are failing” and coaches don’t want to have to be accountable for that information. Mrs. Falger went on the describe how these same players that are failing are misbehaving in her classroom and it makes her miserable. “That’s what I hate about my speech class right now, I have a crapload of football and basketball players in there and they all act like assholes.” She concluded that because coaches can make bad things go away for their players that other students would get suspended for, they players feel untouchable and free to act as they please. When asked if she attempted to contact their coach regarding player misbehavior, Mrs. Falger was quick to retort that the coach never returned her phone call. 112 The flip side of this communication coin is that when teachers utilize coaches not as a partner to collaborate with, but as a disciplinarian with an emphasis on behavioral and intellectual conformity, coaches don’t always believe that is the best solution for their mutual BMSAs. Furthermore, Coach Suger described how teachers have used him as a classroom crutch for behavioral and academic issues with BMSAs. “I would go around and give the teachers my information and tell them to contact me if any of my players were not behaving correctly or making efforts in the classroom. But then it got to a point where the teachers were contacting me too goddamn much for every little thing and I was like damn! I had to stop answering their calls and emails because it got to be way too much.” Coach Suger knew that his relationship with his players would allow him to be an effective academic disciplinarian, but felt that teachers high-jacking this influence without actually caring about the players was not only insincere, but ineffectual and pointless. If teachers wanted to collaborate with coaches for the sake of BMSA academic accountability and achievement, Coach Suger fully supported that effort. However, and more likely, if teachers simply wanted to use the power and influence of coaches to make their jobs easier, then he wasn’t willing to play that game. If the intertwined means of BMSA control by teachers and coaches (discipline, accountability) don’t justify righteous ends for BMSAs educational outcomes (effective classroom instruction or improved grades), then movement towards meaningful, sustained relationships between leaders of BMSAs will not succeed. 113 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Overview The purpose of this qualitative exploratory study was to identify the perceptions and behaviors of leadership that teachers and coaches have about each other, specifically as they pertain to their mutual BMSAs. This chapter will first provide a summary of the study and an overview of the three major constructs of leadership that emerged from the data. Next, new considerations for leadership modeling are addressed, followed by key theoretical and practical implications for the fields of sport and education. Finally, the chapter is concluded with a brief summary of future directions for this work. Summary of Study This study examined the perceptions and behaviors of teachers and sport coaches regarding leadership in an urban high school. Multiple content analyses were conducted within and across the three teacher/coach dyads to draw out meanings from the data, both obvious and obscure (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). A distributed framework of leadership was initially thought the most appropriate fit for this study due to it emphasis on multiple players for leadership roles and responsibilities. However, through the progression of analysis, it became clear that while distributing leadership was a core concept in maximizing input from various sources, the actual practice described in the schools was more transformational and transactional. Care, control, and communication emerged from the data as three major constructs that informed how teachers and coaches define and operationalize leadership of their BMSAs. Each construct was presented in a separate section, and provided insight into how the construct might inform current leadership research 114 Major Findings Three major characteristics of leadership that were identified by teachers and coaches as critical components to maintaining an ecology of academic success for BMSAs in urban high schools were: (1) caring, (2) control, and (3) communication. These characteristics of leadership were identified in different ways, depending on the role of the leader. All of these leadership characteristics were noted to improve relationships between individuals and their students, helped contribute to the overall health of their schools’ academic ecology, and provided BMSAs with differing levels of motivation to succeed in the classroom. Finding 1: Care. The leadership characteristic most emphasized and utilized by coaches was care. This finding is strongly supported in the sport literature, where a caring climate can contribute to a host of positive outcomes for athletes (Fry and Gano-Overway, 2010; Gould, Flett, and Laurer, 2012). Coaches believed in taking holistic care of BMSAs as a foundational practice upon which all other leadership actions were built. Teachers were less likely to care in the classroom and more likely to adopt a transactional style of leadership. Finding 2: Control. The leadership characteristic most emphasized and utilized by teachers was control. Teachers in urban high schools sought to exert control over BMSAs for behavior regulation and believed that their ability to motivate BMSAs through threats and grades was appropriate. Teachers conceived the notion of control as expressing itself in the form of arbitrary authority that BMSAs did not always respect. Teachers believed effective instruction proceeds classroom control. They believed the more control they have over BMSAs, the more likely they will see positive educational outcomes. Teachers understood successful leadership to be directly dependent upon control their classroom. 115 The strongest finding within the control construct was the power dynamic between teachers and coaches in urban high schools. Based on what these educators revealed, sport coaches maintain a majority of the ‘power’ over BMSAs in their school—often times even more than the parents. Consistent with literature regarding the powerful influence that coaches have (Gould, 2006; Hartmann, 2003), this study revealed coaches’ abilities to influence BMSAs behavior without even needing to be physically present. Teachers acknowledged that power dynamic by explaining that BMSAs’ negative behaviors or grades could be redirected based on threats to contact their coach. Finding 3: Communication. The most prevalent leadership characteristic referred to by all participants was communication. All participants were interested in improving communications, but the reasons differed according to role. Teachers wanted increased communication with coaches as a mechanism for BMSAs accountability in the classroom; coaches were in support of increased communication with teachers not as a punitive measure for BMSAs, but more as a reinforcement and reassurance to the teachers. This study also contributed to the field of high school leadership and added to educational researchers’ knowledge on the topic. Specifically, this study showed that relationships between teachers and coaches in urban high schools are sorely lacking a communication structure within the school that can be used as a tool of influence in the classroom. The study also suggested that teachers feel disenfranchised from the process of relationship building with their fellow coaches because there are increasing numbers of coaches that do not work in the building. This makes collegial connections extremely difficult because no basic foundation exists to facilitate that interaction. 116 Considerations For a New Leadership Model The results of this study indicate that leadership is a complicated construct. It is uniquely defined for each individual seeking that role, but maintains commonalities across individuals, environments, and contexts. Three characteristics of leadership that this study found to be particularly important to foundational relationship-building between teachers, coaches, and BMSAs are caring, communication, and control. Contrary to the findings of Landsman and Lewis (2006), the results of this study indicate that coaches and teachers aren’t antagonistic towards each other. Instead, a casual ambivalence has evolved over time between the two that explains their lack of effort to exhibit other characteristics of effective leadership. Teachers don’t seem to care about coaches because they perceive that coaches don’t care about them. Furthermore, coaches admitted that they try to do the best they can to support teachers with BMSA accountability in the classroom, but often times fall short—and teachers reported that efforts to maintain a semblance of positive leadership ecology would be a waste of their precious energy. This careless, ambivalent disconnect between teacher and coach exposes BMSAs to a negative educational environment and provides ample space for BMSAs to exploit that space to their benefit. A new model of effective leadership for BMSAs in inner-city high schools should include the constructs of collegial interaction (communication), support (care) , and accountability (control) to address what this study has found to be lacking or weak foundational structures within their shared environment. Key Theoretical Implications Extensive research by National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) concludes that the supposed positive influences of sports on academic outcomes are inconclusive. Smaller scale studies attempting to correlate the participation in high school sports with student 117 improvement have been more successful in proving that athletics either help (Jordan, 1999; Trudeau & Shepard, 2008) or hinder (Dworkin & Larson, 2006) student education. Yet these smaller studies are not generalizable to a larger scale population that would be sufficient for informing policy or practice. What appears to be lacking in research is attention focused on the dynamics of the relationship between athletic and academic structures surrounding the student- athletes and how the formal and informal leaders within that particular matrix interact to educate these student-athletes. Perhaps considering the context of student-athlete education is in order before attempting to evaluate causal relationships that may or may not result thereof. As a former athletic director, I was constantly observing behaviors, styles, and language of teachers and coaches in an urban high school. These observations birthed ideas regarding reform for high school educational organizations and the students within. But experimental ideas do not have the sharp contours that theoretical notions possess (Nagel, 1961) and the high stakes of educational research demand more established theory. Furthermore, the subjective lens through which I observe the behaviors of teachers and coaches (and the very observation itself) might have questionable value in a traditional theoretical system. So, although my professional work in the field was crucial for the recognition of thoughts and behaviors of high school leaders and organizations, I needed some intellectual tools to organize my qualitative data and serve as a guide to this investigation (Deutsch &Krauss, 1967). Deutch & Krauss’ (1965) model of social psychology is an appropriate consideration in future research for two reasons. First, the model is a great example of how concepts and observations only serve a functional purpose for research and practice when they are linked. Combined with direct observations of coaches and teachers, Deutch & Krauss (1965) could underpin this data with applicable information of generalized social behavior in humans. 118 Secondly, social psychology is the study of how people affect one another or “the study of actual, imagined, or anticipated person to person relationships in a social context as they affect the individuals involved” (Allport, 1954). A close inspection of high school teachers’ and coaches’ attitudes towards each other and the ‘others’ understanding of the educative relevance of sport could be guided by contextualizing both the actions and the observations. Again, finding the links between what is seen and heard from teachers and coaches can be informed by a socio-psychological framework encapsulating this entire inquiry: (teacher) behavior is informed by the psychological perceptions of other organizational members (coaches)—or vice versa. Social psychology adequately frames the basic inquiry of human interaction, but there is a need to go deeper with the data and narrow the lens for a clearer picture of exactly what we are trying to see: how the variable of sport influences the behavior and thinking of leaders in educational settings. Utilizing sport psychology (Martens, 1942) to examine such behaviors towards student-athletes allows the researcher to consider philosophical and motivational intentions unique to sports that the Deutch and Krauss (1965) model might would have missed. Furthermore, Marten’s (1942) sport psychology model is based on a hierarchy of philosophical components that is scaffolded by personal and professional values. If data from the interviews and surveys can be interpreted through such a sport psychology model, then a much clearer picture of why teachers and coaches think and act the way they do towards students-athletes would develop. Their personal beliefs and life philosophies may provide greater insight into their treatment of student-athletes or NT coaches. Key Practical Implications This study attempts to understand how the relationships of adults in an educational context are conducted and how those relationships might affect the young people whom they are 119 educating. The most important leadership construct found across all participants in this study was communication. Several participants reiterated how a consistent structure to facilitate that communication is needed, and teachers specifically emphasized that a lack of communication between themselves and the BMSAs coaches meant a lack of accountability for BMSAs. Knowing this, school administration and staff would do well to establish stronger foundations of communication between teachers and coaches at the school, and not just as a mechanism of accountability. The purpose of this paper is not to convince readers that increased attention to sports and student-athletes in schools will somehow magically increase test scores for urban high school students in general. Rather, I would hope this inquiry offers an alternative lens for readers to consider what leadership in high schools could be if athletic departments were allowed to stop being extracurricular and start being co-curricular. Not to be confused with the much more important core curriculum, but at least considered in the overall scheme of school improvement. Utilizing teachers and coaches to lead all physical activity in urban schools, create a sports curriculum for the school improvement plan, and mandate participation of some type of continuous physical activity for all students throughout their high school career could be possible contributions that athletics (and athletic departments) could play in the overall leadership and planning of an effective school. Considering that athletics may have more to offer to the school than just sports is not a new concept, but it does require re-thinking the very definition of sports in educational curriculums as enacted by unconventional leaders. Perhaps on a more practical level, the data is incorporated into local school policy, where school administrators adopt Leithwood et al.’s (2003) model of transformational leadership that encompasses a more holistic approach to student education, . A loftier goal would be identifying 120 a technical model or system of teacher/coach training to improve communication that high schools could easily implement to positively affect student-athlete outcomes. Limitations Studying urban high schools geographically limits the data and the arbitrary selection of certain urban schools over others precludes the benefit of random sampling that also weakens the validity of the data. Furthermore, this study is specific to the educational environment scaffolding the student-athletes educational experience in urban secondary institutions. The results of this study are not necessarily transferable to other populations of secondary institutions, i.e. rural and suburban, non-athletes. Future Directions Teachers and coaches are important contributors to the overall academic ecology of BMSAs in inner-city high schools. However, there is little research to understand how these leaders actually work together for the common purpose of their mutual BMSAs; this lack of understanding highlights why BMSAs might be underperforming academically. Furthermore, academic and athletic researchers have failed to consider how the influence of these adults might actually speak to more than just one part of a BMSAs identity. Current research about leadership in inner-city high schools needs to acknowledge that the multi-faceted identity of BMSAs should be of particular interest, given the high economic stakes of their success at the collegiate and professional level. Furthermore, leadership of BMSAs requires cultural and racial sensitivity, acknowledgement of their triple-consciousness, consistent communication, and preferably, the presence of a Black male. This leadership approach must be continuously preached and practiced in urban high school environments, where BMSAs are most at risk for academic struggle. 121 It is equally important to consider the context in which this leadership occurs. Throughout the current study, the issue of in-season versus out-of-season leadership was highlighted by teachers as a strong factor that mediated power and influence of BMSAs. Future research should explore how the construct of power is contextualized according to sport season and how different leaders emerge as seasons change. 122 APPENDICES 123 APPENDIX A HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL IRB Approval Documents for IRB#x13-177e 1 message IRB To: "dfeltz@msu.edu" Cc: "beverly5@msu.edu" Dear Investigator(s), Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM Your new application regarding IRB# x13-177e; i043136 has been approved. You may view and print the approval letter and any corresponding documents from the on-line system by clicking on the IRB number. Select record action for the specific application number (i.e., the “i” or “r” number), select view approval documents and click ”Go!” There will be a hyperlink for each individual approval document. Please note, the primary investigator is responsible for ensuring that all individuals involved with this protocol have successfully completed IRB human subject training prior to any contact with human subjects or their identifiable data. Such training must remain valid during the duration of the research project. Please do not respond to this e-mail. If you have questions or concerns regarding your IRB protocol, please contact the IRB at irb@msu.edu. Good luck with your research. IRB Staff 124 APPENDIX B HUMAN SUBJECTS CONSENT FORM Investigating Leadership in Urban Schools Participant Consent Form You are invited to participate in a research project conducted by Ph.D. student Christel Beverly and Masters’ student Ben Spencer under the supervision of Deborah Feltz, Ph.D. from Michigan State University. This study is to investigate the perceptions and behaviors of traditional and non-traditional leaders in urban high schools. You have been selected as a potential participant in this study because you are currently teaching a/o coaching in an urban high school. Procedure: As part of this research, you will be asked to participate in a short interview (no more than 1 hour) as the researchers attempt to get more in-depth responses from school leaders regarding their mutual perceptions and behaviors. You will also be asked to complete an electronic questionnaire. It should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. A paper version of the survey will be available upon request. The questionnaire asks questions your perceptions and behaviors as a leader in your school. We may obtain official records of your students’ GPAs from Lansing School District Technology Department. Benefits: This participation may serve to further our scientific knowledge about the collaboration between teachers and coaches in urban high schools and how that may affect student-athlete achievement. Compensation: You will have the personal satisfaction of knowing you contributed to a study that may affect the culture of urban classrooms and the behavior of the student-athletes inside and outside of the school setting. Voluntary Participation: Your decision of whether or not to participate will not affect your job status or coaching position and is completely confidential. Participation is voluntary and you may refuse to participate or discontinue at any time without penalty. Confidentiality: Your participation in this study will remain confidential. The principal investigator, secondary investigator, and the IRB will have access to the research data. It will be kept in a locked file cabinet and on a password protected computer. All collected data will be de- identified and analyzed at the group level to ensure the confidentiality of individual responses. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Risk: Some question may generate stress/discomfort to answer. Thus, it is advised to answer these questions when you are alone. If you still don’t feel comfortable, simply skip the question and move to the next one. Once the data is collected, it will be de-identified, and will be handled only by investigators. 125 Contact and Questions: If you have any questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to answer any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers by email: Christel Beverly (beverly5@msu.edu), phone: 517-899-9809; Ben Spencer (spenc291@msu.edu), phone: 402-429-1500;or Deborah L. Feltz, Ph.D. (dfeltz@msu.edu), phone: (517) 355-4730 or by regular mail: Michigan State University, 134 IM Circle, East Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180 or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. Statement of Consent/Assent: By signing this form, you agree to participate in this study ‘Investigating Leadership in Urban Schools’. I (as a participant) voluntarily agree to participate in this study: Signature:________________________________ Date: _______________________ Thank you for your time and cooperation 126 APPENDIX C DISTRICT RESEARCH REQUEST APPROVAL April 15, 2013 Christel Beverly 516 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Re: Project #1303-08 Dear Mrs. Beverly, Lansing School District Department of Accountability and School Improvement Your Research Request Application entitled Distributing Leadership in Urban High Schools to Improve Student-Athlete Achievement is Approved. This approval is granted based upon your agreement not to identify the Lansing School District within any publication without obtaining specific written permission from the district and all data will be reported anonymously or as a group data with no specific identifying information. It is also understood that as the researcher, you will submit to the district a report of the findings within 90 days of the conclusion of the project. The following comments apply specifically to your request: 1. Written consent and participant assent forms will be obtained from each participant prior to their participation in the study. 2. A list of all persons participating in this study who are not employed by the Lansing School District and who will be entering the building or buildings where the study is to be conducted will be forwarded to the Lansing School District’s Department of Accountability and School Improvement to be kept on file before research activities are begun. 3. You will not specifically name the Lansing School District or the buildings in which you conducted your research in any papers or publications resulting from this research. If you have any questions, need additional information, or encounter other issues during the execution of your study, please do not hesitate to contact me either via telephone at (517) 755- 1041 or via email at Tiffany.Bunge@lansingschools.net. Thank you for your patience and for your interest in the Lansing School District. Sincerely, Tiffany R. Bunge Research, Evaluation, and Compliance Specialist The Lansing School District is committed to a policy of providing equal employment opportunities to all qualified people Regardless of economic or social status and will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, Creed, religion, political belief, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, veteran status, or physical or mental disability. Page 1 127 APPENDIX D TEACHERS INITIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself. 2. For the purposes of this interview, I would like to know your definition of an educator for high school students. Of a leader of high school students. Who could be defined as a strong leader at _______? Why? 3. Could coaches be defined as educators? As leaders? Why/not? 4. Do you think coaches who are also teachers are better leaders of student-athletes than coaches who do not teach___________? Why/not? 5. What kind of relationships do you have with other educators at __________? How have these experiences shaped your beliefs about coaches at __________? 6. How do you think those relationships shape their beliefs about you? 7. Please describe the type of interactions do you have specifically with coaches at __________? 8. Please describe the type of communications do you have specifically with coaches at __________? 9. How do you think those relationships affect the students? 10. What is the difference between coaches who support student-athletes and coaches who do not? 11. What is the difference between coaches who prioritize student-athlete academic success and those who don’t? 12. Tell me about your experience as a coach at _____________________. 13. Do you consider yourself an educator at ______________? Why/not? 14. Do you consider yourself a leader at ______________? Why/not? 15. How do you think coaches perceive you at ____________________? 16. How do you think other staff perceive you at ____________________? 17. How do you think student-athletes perceive you at ____________________? 18. Do you believe it is the responsibility of coaches to support student athletes’ academic endeavors? Why or why not? Please provide your rationale or philosophy. 19. Have you ever used your influence as a leader in the school to support the learning needs of student athletes? If yes, tell me about a time when you did that. If no, why not? 20. Can you ever recall a time when you advocated or intervened in some way on behalf of student athletes? If yes, what have you learned from that experience? If not, why not? 21. Do you think there are unique and specific ways that strong leaders in your school can contribute to the learning experiences of student athletes? 128 APPENDIX E TEACHERS FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE (Discussion of trust) 1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself. 2. For the purposes of this interview, I would like to know your definition of an educator for high school students. Of a leader of high school students. Who could be defined as a strong leader at _______? Why? 3. Could coaches be defined as educators? As leaders? Why/not? 4. Do you think coaches who are also teachers are better leaders of student-athletes than coaches who do not teach___________? Why/not? 5. What kind of relationships do you have with other educators at __________? How have these experiences shaped your beliefs about coaches at __________? 6. 7. How do you think those relationships shape their beliefs about you? 8. Please describe the type of interactions do you have specifically with coaches at __________? 9. Please describe the type of communications do you have specifically with coaches at __________? 10. How do you think those relationships affect the students? 11. (Discussion of IN SEASON VS. OUT OF SEASON) 12. What is the difference between coaches who support student-athletes and coaches who do not? 13. What is the difference between coaches who prioritize student-athlete academic success and those who don’t? 14. (Discussion of PARENTAL ROLE) 15. Tell me about your experience as a coach at _____________________. 16. Do you consider yourself an educator at ______________? Why/not? 17. Do you consider yourself a leader at ______________? Why/not? 18. How do you think coaches perceive you at ____________________? 19. How do you think other staff perceive you at ____________________? 20. How do you think student-athletes perceive you at ____________________? 21. Do you believe it is the responsibility of coaches to support student athletes’ academic endeavors? Why or why not? Please provide your rationale or philosophy. 22. Have you ever used your influence as a leader in the school to support the learning needs of student athletes? If yes, tell me about a time when you did that. If no, why not? 23. Can you ever recall a time when you advocated or intervened in some way on behalf of student athletes? If yes, what have you learned from that experience? If not, why not? 24. Do you think there are unique and specific ways that strong leaders in your school can contribute to the learning experiences of student athletes? 129 25. How do coaches’ absence in the school affect your student-athletes’ behavior and/or academic outcomes? 26. What do you think would change if coaches began working in the school building? 27. How do you think other teachers perceive the coaches’ absence? 28. We can assume that because of MHSAA standards, all of your student-athletes are academically eligible to participate. Aside from the basic understanding of eligibility, what effort do you make to communicate with other staff in the building and coaches regarding your players’ behavior and grades? How does the staff and coaches respond to these efforts? 29. Do you feel that it is your responsibility as a teacher to make extra efforts to check in on your players’ progress at school? 130 APPENDIX F COACHES TENTATIVE INTERVIEW GUIDE (TRUST?) 1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself. 2. For the purposes of this interview, I would like to know your definition of an educator. Of a leader. Who could be defined as a strong leader at _______? Why? 3. Could classroom teachers be defined as educators? As leaders? Why/not? 4. Do you think teachers who coach a sport are better leaders of student-athletes than teachers who do not coach or do not support athletics at ___________? Why/not? 5. What kind of relationships do you have with other educators at __________? 6. 7. How have these experiences shaped your beliefs about teachers at __________? 8. How do you think those relationships shape their beliefs about you? 9. Please describe the type of interactions do you have specifically with teachers at __________? 10. Please describe the type of communications do you have specifically with teachers at __________? 11. (IN SEASON VS. OUT OF SEASON) 12. How do you think those relationships affect the students? 13. What is the difference between teachers who support student-athletes and teachers who do not? 14. (PARENTAL ROLE) 15. What is the difference between coaches who prioritize student-athlete academic success and those who don’t? 16. Tell me about your experience as a coach at _____________________. 17. Do you consider yourself an educator at ______________? Why/not? 18. Do you consider yourself a leader at ______________? Why/not? 19. How do you think teachers perceive you at ____________________? 20. How do you think other staff perceive you at ____________________? 21. How do you think student-athletes perceive you at ____________________? 22. Do you believe it is the responsibility of coaches to support student athletes’ academic endeavors? Why or why not? Please provide your rationale or philosophy. 23. Have you ever used your influence as a leader in the school to support the learning needs of student athletes? If yes, tell me about a time when you did that. If no, why not? 24. Can you ever recall a time when you advocated or intervened in some way on behalf of student athletes? If yes, what have you learned from that experience? If not, why not? 25. Do you think there are unique and specific ways that strong leaders in your school can contribute to the learning experiences of student athletes? 26. How does your absence in the school affect your student-athletes’ behavior and/or academic outcomes? 131 27. What do you think would change if you began working in the school building? 28. How do you think educators that work inside the building perceive your absence? 29. We can assume that because of MHSAA standards, all of your student-athletes are academically eligible to participate. Aside from the basic understanding of eligibility, what effort do you make to communicate with other staff in the building regarding your players’ behavior and grades? How does the staff respond to these efforts? 30. Do you feel that it is your responsibility as a coach to make extra efforts to check in on your players’ progress at school? 132 APPENDIX G COACHES FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE (TRUST?) 1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself. 2. For the purposes of this interview, I would like to know your definition of an educator. Of a leader. Who could be defined as a strong leader at _______? Why? 3. Could classroom teachers be defined as educators? As leaders? Why/not? 4. Do you think teachers who coach a sport are better leaders of student-athletes than teachers who do not coach or do not support athletics at ___________? Why/not? 5. What kind of relationships do you have with other educators at __________? 6. 7. How have these experiences shaped your beliefs about teachers at __________? 8. How do you think those relationships shape their beliefs about you? 9. Please describe the type of interactions do you have specifically with teachers at __________? 10. Please describe the type of communications do you have specifically with teachers at __________? 11. (IN SEASON VS. OUT OF SEASON) 12. How do you think those relationships affect the students? 13. What is the difference between teachers who support student-athletes and teachers who do not? 14. (PARENTAL ROLE) 15. What is the difference between coaches who prioritize student-athlete academic success and those who don’t? 16. Tell me about your experience as a coach at _____________________. 17. Do you consider yourself an educator at ______________? Why/not? 18. Do you consider yourself a leader at ______________? Why/not? 19. How do you think teachers perceive you at ____________________? 20. How do you think other staff perceive you at ____________________? 21. How do you think student-athletes perceive you at ____________________? 22. Do you believe it is the responsibility of coaches to support student athletes’ academic endeavors? Why or why not? Please provide your rationale or philosophy. 23. Have you ever used your influence as a leader in the school to support the learning needs of student athletes? If yes, tell me about a time when you did that. If no, why not? 24. Can you ever recall a time when you advocated or intervened in some way on behalf of student athletes? If yes, what have you learned from that experience? If not, why not? 25. Do you think there are unique and specific ways that strong leaders in your school can contribute to the learning experiences of student athletes? 26. How does your absence in the school affect your student-athletes’ behavior and/or academic outcomes? 133 27. What do you think would change if you began working in the school building? 28. How do you think educators that work inside the building perceive your absence? 29. We can assume that because of MHSAA standards, all of your student-athletes are academically eligible to participate. Aside from the basic understanding of eligibility, what effort do you make to communicate with other staff in the building regarding your players’ behavior and grades? How does the staff respond to these efforts? 30. Do you feel that it is your responsibility as a coach to make extra efforts to check in on your players’ progress at school? 134 REFERENCES 135 REFERENCES Alderman, R. B. (1974). Psychological behavior in sport. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders. Angus, D., Rintel, S., & Wiles, J. (2013). Making sense of big text: A visual-first approach for analysing text data using Leximancer and Discursis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 261-267. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147-167. Bakker, D. (2005). NCAA initial eligibility requirements: The case law behind the changes. J. DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems, 3, 160-191. Retrieved from https://via.library.depaul.edu/jslcp/vol3/iss2/2 Baratz, J. C. (1986, January). Black participation in the teaching pool. In Paper presented at the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, New York. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 889-903. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Beach, R., Lundell, D. B., & Jung, H. (2002). Developmental college students' negotiation of social practices between peer, family, workplace, and university worlds. (CRDEUL Monograph Exploring Urban Literacy and Developmental Education). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College. Bekiari, A. (2014). Verbal Aggressiveness and Leadership Style of Sport Instructors and Their Relationship with Athletes’ Intrinsic Motivation. Creative Education, 5, 114-121. Bennett, C. T., & Yeakey, C. C. (1990). Race, schooling and class in American society. Journal of Negro Education, 59(1), 3-18. 136 Benson, K. F. (2000). Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes' stories of schooling. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 223-246. Bernard, H. H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. SAGE publications. Bloom, C. M., & Erlandson, D. A. (2003). African American women principals in urban schools: Realities, (re) constructions, and resolutions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 339-369. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end. Sage Publications. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Foundations of qualitative research in education. Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods, 1-48. Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2004). Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis1: The complexities of writing about the use of QSR* NVIVO within a grounded theory study. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 247-265. Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2006). Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field methods, 18(3), 245-266. Brown, P., and Lauder, H. (2001). Capitalism and Social Progress: The Future of Society in a Global Economy. New York: Palgrave, 2001 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York. NY: Harper and Row Publishers. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. Carlyle, T. (1841). Lecture V: The Hero as Man of Letters. Johnson, Rousseau, Burns. CARLYLE, Thomas: On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History. Londres: James Fraser. Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding sports coaching. New York. Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International journal of sport psychology. 135. Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. Handbook of research on sport psychology. 647-671. Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. Handbook of Sport Psychology, Third Edition, 111- Chelladurai, P. (2014). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity: A systems perspective. Taylor & Francis. 137 Boston, Mass Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Inc. Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T. R. (1978). A normative model of decision styles in coaching. Athletic administrator, 13(2), 6-9. Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement, 227-253. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS). Coakley, J. J. (1994). Sport in society issues and controversies (5th ed). St. Louis Mosby Coakley, J. J (1998). Sport in society: issues and controversies (6th ed). WCB/McGraw-Hill, Cole, R. V. J. (1983). A comparison of perceived leadership styles among presidents of selected Black colleges in the southwestern and southeastern United States. Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society: the social life of the teenager and its impact on education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Conley, D. T., & Goldman, P. (1994). Facilitative Leadership: How Principals Lead without Dominating. OSSC Bulletin, 37(9), n9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage. Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307-323. Crotty, M. (1989). The foundations of social research. London: Sage. Crowley, C., Harré, R., & Tagg, C. (2002). Qualitative research and computing: methodological issues and practices in using QSR NVivo and NUD* IST. International journal of social research methodology, 5(3), 193-197. Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Suger, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders. How teacher leaders enhance school success. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-152. Davidson, J., & di Gregorio, S. (2011). Qualitative research and technology: In the midst of a revolution. Handbook of qualitative research, 4, 627-643. 138 Press. Davis, N. W., & Meyer, B. B. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: A procedural comparison. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(1), 116-124. Dewey, J., & Wheeler, J. E (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Southern Illinois University Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge. Du Bois, W. E. B. (Ed.). (1917). The Crisis (Vol. 15). Crisis Publishing Company. Dunbar, C., Rodriguez, D. & Parker, L. (2001). Race, subjectivity, and the interview process. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), The Handbook of Interviewing (pp. 279-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute. Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, team, and coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Fernández, L. (2002). Telling stories about school: Using critical race and Latino critical theories to document Latina/Latino education and resistance. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 45-65. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. Advances in experimental social psychology, 11, 59-112. Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. John Wiley & Sons. Flessa, J. J. (2003). What's Urban in the Urban School Principalship: Case Studies of Four Middle School Principals in One City School District. University of California, Berkeley. Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel psychology, 15(1), 43-56. Flennaugh, T., & Tyrone, H. C. (2011). Research concerns, cautions and considerations on Black males in a ‘post‐racial’ society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(1). Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting white’.” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206. Franz Coldren, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice: The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy, 21(2), 369-396. Fry, M. D., & Gano-Overway, L. A. (2010). Exploring the contribution of the caring climate to the youth sport experience. Journal of applied sport psychology, 22(3), 294-304. 139 Fuoss, D. E., & Troppmann, R. (1981). Effective coaching: A psychological approach. John Wiley & Sons. 12(4): 4-11. Gano-Overway, L. A., Newton, M., Magyar, T. M., Fry, M. D., Kim, M. S., & Guivernau, M. R. (2009). Influence of caring youth sport contexts on efficacy-related beliefs and social behaviors. Developmental psychology, 45(2), 329. Gezi, K. (1990) The role of leadership in inner-city schools. Educational Research Quarterly, Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Open University. Gilbert, L. S., Jackson, K., & di Gregorio, S. (2014). Tools for Analyzing Qualitative Data: The History and Relevance of Qualitative Data Analysis Software. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 221-236). Springer New York. Gould, D., Chung, Y., Smith, P., & White, J. (2006). Future directions in coaching life skills: Understanding high school coaches’ views and needs. Athletic insight, 8(3), 28-38. Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2007). Coaching life skills through football: A study of award-winning high school coaches. Journal of applied sport psychology, 19(1), 16-37. Greer, J. (2013). The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation and the Development of the Residential Security Maps. Journal of Urban History, 39(2), 275-296. Griffith, C. R. (1926). Psychology of coaching. New York. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The leadership quarterly, 13(4), 423-451. Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: who needs it? School leadership & management, 23(3), 267-291. Gronn, P., & Hamilton, A. (2004). ‘A bit more life in the leadership’: Co-principalship as distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3-35. Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 4, 518-550. doi:10.1177/001316x06290641 Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education, 33(3), 329-352. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and policy in schools, 4(3), 221-239. 140 Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Harper, Shaun R; Davis, Charles H F, III. (2012). The Journal of Educational Foundations, leadership, 61(7), 8-13. 26(1/2), 103-120. Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-24. Harris III, F., & Wood, J. L. (2013). Student success for men of color in community colleges: A review of published literature and research, 1998–2012. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(3), 174-185. Hartmann, D. (2003). Theorizing sport as social intervention: A view from the grassroots. Quest, 55, 118-140. Heller, M. F., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-86. Hendry, L. B. (1969). A personality study of highly successful and “ideal” swimming coaches. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 40(2), 299-304. Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Changing patterns of leadership. Leadership in the post- Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 1, 371- 404. Hillier, A. E. (2005). Residential Security Maps and Neighborhood Appraisals: The Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Case of Philadelphia. Social Science History, 29(2), 207-233. Hirsch, A. R. (1983). Making the second ghetto: race and housing in Chicago, 1940 - 1960. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Holzman, M. (2010). Yes We Can: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males, 2010. Schott Foundation for Public Education. 70's. 141 House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Working Paper Series 76-06. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Hubbard, L., & Datnow A. (2005) Anthropology & Education Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 115- Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3), Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of America. New York: Oxford 131 146-152. University Press. Johnson, M. B., Edmonds, W. A., Jain, S., & Cavazos Jr, J. (2010). Conceptualizing the systemic interplay of athlete development. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 41(1), 1. Johnston, L. (2006). Software and method: Reflections on teaching and using QSR NVivo in doctoral research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(5), 379-391. Jones, M., & Diment, K. (2010). The CAQDA Paradox: A divergence between research method and analytical tool. Jowett, S. (2009). Validating coach-athlete relationship measures with the nomological network. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13(1), 34-51. Jowett, S., & Chaundy, V. (2004). An Investigation Into the Impact of Coach Leadership and Coach-Athlete Relationship on Group Cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 302. Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb. Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424-467. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management review, 12(4), 648-657. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teaches of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 142 Ladson-Billings G. (2003). It’s your world. I’m just trying to explain it: Understanding our epistemological and methodological challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 5–12. Lambert, L. (2002). The constructivist leader. Teachers College Press. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70. Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The principal’s role in teacher development. Teacher development and educational change, 86-103. Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706. Lenk, H. (1977). Authoritarian or democratic styled coaching. Team Dynamics. Champaign, IL: Lewis, R. B. (2004). NVivo 2.0 and ATLAS. Ti 5.0: A comparative review of two popular qualitative data-analysis programs. Field Methods, 16(4), 439-464. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief, 219-238. Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968). The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(4), 440-458. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational administration quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. Handbook of applied social research Stipes. methods, 69-100. McKenzie, K. B., & Locke, L. A. (2014). Distributed leadership: A good theory but what if leaders won’t, don’t know how, or can’t lead? Journal of School Leadership, 24(1), 164- 188. doi:10.1177/105268461402400106 Meggyesy, D. (2000). Athletes in big-time college sport. Society, 37(3), 24-28. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: a guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 143 Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational researcher, 36(7), 388-400. Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Short, S. E. (2004). Collective Efficacy and Team Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Collegiate Football Teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(2), 126-138. Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Longman, 10 Bank Street, White Plains, NY 10606. Norwood, K. J. (2008). Adult complicity in the dis-education of the Black male high school athlete & societal failures to remedy his plight. Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban education, 38(4), 431-459. Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895-934. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. Developmental pragmatics, 43-72. Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: a cultural‐ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188. Orfield, Gary; & Lee, Chungmei. (2005). Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality. UCLA: The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Oser, F. & Baeriswyl, F. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. (pp. 1031-1065) In V. Richardson (ed.). Handbook of research on teaching. 4th edition. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Penman, K. A., Hastad, D. N., & Cords, W. L. (1974). Success of the authoritarian coach. The Journal of social psychology. Perrow, C. B. C. B. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view (No. 04; HM131, P3.). Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational researcher, 22(2), 23-29. Pinkston, G. C. (1982). Personality traits of coaches of women's intercollegiate basketball (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University). Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. Student perceptions in the classroom, 7, 149- 183. 144 Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Gundlach, L. (2003). Making Sense of Leading Schools: A Study of the School Principalship. Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Relationships among coach leadership, peer leadership, and adolescent athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of transformational leadership theory. Journal of Applied Spot Psychology, 25(2), 265-279. Puebla, C. A. C., & Davidson, J. (2012). Qualitative computing and qualitative research: Addressing the challenges of technology and globalization. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 237-248. QSR. (2000). QSR NUD*IST VIVO (Version 1.3) [Computer Software]. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd. Renn, K. A., & Reason, R. D. (2012). College students in the United States: Characteristics, experiences, and outcomes. John Wiley & Sons. Riddle, B., & Gilbert, W. (2011). Assessing lesson complexity and teaching behaviours in sport. Paper presented at the 32nd annual Central California Research Symposium held on April 6 in Fresno, CA. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American journal of Education, 93(3), 352-388. Rugg, H. O. (1936). American life and the school curriculum: Next steps toward schools of living. Ginn. solutions. Transaction. Sailes, G. A. (1986). Guest editorial: The exploitation of the Black athlete: Some alternative Sailes, G. A. (1998). African Americans in sport contemporary themes. New Brunswick, NJ: Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9. Scott, J. (1971). The athletic revolution. New York: Free Press. Siccama, C. J., & Penna, S. (2008). Enhancing validity of a qualitative dissertation research study by using NVivo. Qualitative Research Journal, 8(2), 91-103. 145 Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in little league baseball. Psychological perspectives in youth sports, 173, 201. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 48(2), 401-407. Smith, B. J. (2000). Marginalized youth, delinquency, and education: The need for critical- interpretive research. The Urban Review, 32(3), 293-312. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(18), 1522-1551. Sotiriadou, P., Brouwers, J., & Le, T. A. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: a comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research, (ahead-of-print), 1- 17. Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. Routledge Spillane, J. P. (2009). Managing to lead: Reframing school leadership and management. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 70-73. Spillane, J. P., & Camburn, E. (2006). The practice of leading and managing: The distribution of responsibility for leadership and management in the schoolhouse. American Educational Research Association. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., & Jita, L. (2000, April). Leading classroom instruction: A preliminary exploration of the distribution of leadership practice. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., & Jita, L. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum studies, 35(5), 533-543. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Sherer, J., & Coldren, A. F. (2004). Distributing leadership. Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow, Open University Press, New York, NY, 37-49. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 36(1): 3–34. doi:10.1080/0022027032000106726 146 Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of psychology, 25(1), 35-71. Sugrue, T. J. (1996). The origins of the urban crisis: race and inequality in postwar Detroit: with a new preface by the author. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sugrue, T. J. (2005). The origins of the urban crisis: race and inequality in postwar Detroit: with a new preface by the author. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Teel, K. M., & Obidah, J. E. (2008). Building racial and cultural competence in the classroom: strategies from urban educators. New York, NY: Teachers College. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology today, 9(8), 75-78. Trier, J. (2005). ‘Sordid Fantasies’: reading popular ‘inner‐city’ school films as racialized texts with pre‐service teachers. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(2), 171-189. Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2004). New avenues for instructional communication research: Relationships among coaches’ leadership behaviors and athletes’ affective learning. Communication Research Reports, 21(2), 130-143. Tutko, T. A., & Richards, J. W. (1971). Psychology of coaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. United States Government Accountability Office: Report to Congressional Requesters, (2012). K-12 EDUCATION: School-Based Physical Education and Sports Programs, 12-350. Weitzman, E. A. (2004). Advancing the scientific basis of qualitative research. In Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research (p. 145). National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA. Wyatt, J. (1999). Our moral duty to clean up college athletics. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (45), A56. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of educational research, 74(3), 255-316. Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India. 147