Agility: an essential element of leadership for an evolving educational landscape

So much has changed in regard to everyday life on Earth over the past year and a half. In society broadly, and the education sector specifically, the nature of the landscape has definitely shifted. With respect to leadership in schools and systems—provincially, nationally, and internationally—the organizational terrain has evolved because of the extraordinary experiences of the pandemic period and is not likely to return to the well-worn physical features of the past. Moreover, it is conceivable that changes to the features of institutions of public education have only just begun because of the impact of COVID-19 on children and school systems. As Harris and Jones (2020) described, the coronavirus has exacerbated issues related to well-being and highlighted how inequalities in public education profoundly affect those in society who have the least. They noted that deliberations to date regarding the closing or, indeed, the re-opening of schools is contentious and largely inconclusive. Further, they claimed that leadership in disruptive times such as these means being able to navigate a different course—creating new pathways along the lay of the land of schools and systems—through the disruption.

Inspired by the wisdom of the late Dr. Robert (Bobby) Moore, an esteemed colleague and friend, Dr. Peter Gamwell (Gamwell and Daly 2017), spoke to the remarkable nature of periods of uncertainty—much like the one taking place at this very point in time. He emphasized the actuality of living in a world of “inbetweenity”—a time between times—where one era is ending and the next has not yet fully emerged. Gamwell and Daly (2017) pointed out that, during these very times, the status quo no longer works; yet, there is no clear path ahead. Moreover, they signaled emerging eras of today and tomorrow are much less likely to wait patiently for the previous era to exit graciously, creating a state of complexity in the now—a time when there are no longer beginnings and endings of eras but rather a continuous confluence of changes. The realities of the past year and a half have placed an exclamation point on the truths of this statement.

The pandemic period has altered the cycle and rhythm of public education that stakeholders of the sector—students, staff, parents/guardians, trustees, federation/union partners, government officials, partner agencies/organizations, as well as members of broader communities—had all become accustomed to over time. A number of these changes, such as the widespread closure of schools and central buildings early last spring and the pivot to remote (synchronous and asynchronous) learning environments system-wide shortly thereafter, were abrupt and almost unbelievable, even as they unfolded. Other changes since that time have been much less sudden and yet impactful, nonetheless. These transformations include the provision of online learning as an alternative, full-time mode of delivery for the foreseeable future, an entire rethink of work from home policies and (or) procedures in school systems, as well as a reflective analysis of missed learning opportunities during occasions that were once called “snow days”.

In many ways, both within and across jurisdictions, these reformations of the educational landscape represent a seismic shift in the state of affairs. The continuous transition to online learning at home, in-person learning at school, or a hybrid of both has created more variation than ever before in school systems. This reality not only has the potential to widen existing inequities, but also make to qualitative and quantitative comparisons—already a challenge—much more difficult.

In a recent study regarding the impact of the pandemic on student learning, Dorn et al. (2020) shared that school shutdowns caused by COVID-19 have exacerbated existing achievement gaps. They stated that the learning loss during school closures—described as the effectiveness of novel remote learning relative to traditional classroom instruction—varies significantly by access to remote learning, the quality of remote instruction, support from parents/guardians and (or) others at home, as well as the degree of engagement on the part of students themselves. The results of their study confirm, however, the troubling reality that the greatest gaps in learning have taken place with historically underserved students and communities.

In their review of homeschooling during the pandemic, Wistoft et al. (2021) confirmed, as one might expect, that different clusters of students experienced teaching and learning in significantly different ways through school lockdown periods. More specifically, their report revealed stark age-related differences. In particular, they indicated that a number of younger students (in elementary grades) had difficulties with the schooling from home situation and that the teaching and learning environment of school lockdowns challenged their well-being and mental health. Furthermore, feedback from surveys provided to parents/guardians of younger learners demonstrated that they too found it much more difficult to balance work, their child(ren), and family life more so than parents/guardians of older students (in secondary grades) for instance. Despite everyone’s best efforts, they surmised that many students felt lost at home.

These studies and similar accounts from across the globe highlight that the “timing is right” for an entirely new model—a comprehensive solution for the dated school system—that avoids a “loss of learning” mindset that further perpetuates a system that did not serve all students and was not without its shortcomings (Fullan 2021). As Fullan (2021) posited, the “pandemic phenomenon” may serve to accelerate the search for solutions (as “right drivers” for whole system success) precisely because of the growing dissatisfaction with the status quo and the new perspectives that the COVID-19 predicament provides. The right drivers, working with one another in combination, include: the importance of learning, equity, and well-being as an integrated endeavour as opposed to separate goals; the further development of the social intelligence of educators—the propensity to work with others to achieve common goals; and the establishment of “systemness”—a sense that all stakeholders, at all levels of the school system, play an active part in the solution—with the responsibility for system change through the achievement of established goals, placed equally at each of the three levels of the system—local (district level), middle (regional level), and central (policy level).

In reality, school systems in place prepandemic were somewhat antiquated and clearly not serving the needs of all their clientele. The situation may actually be worse now, in many respects, especially for underserved and (or) vulnerable students and their families. The uncertainty of the times represents both a challenge and an opportunity as educators continue to navigate the shifts in organizational terrain caused by the disruption. It is precisely for these reasons that agility—the ability to think and move quickly and easily—serves as an essential element in the move forward for leaders of schools and systems. The smartness of a leader’s continuous interactions with the multi-faceted features of their environment, the very nature of the ever-evolving educational landscape of today, is of tremendous value for the leadership of tomorrow.

If agility is what is required to navigate the current state of complexity, how can educational leaders respond? There are five interrelated factors that are worthy of consideration in the context of leading through the pandemic disruption. They are as follows.

Of note, the move forward will also need to rely on fundamental principles of the past that remain of value such as integrative thinking—a decision-making process or methodology that frames and solves real-world problems by balancing the tensions between opposing (or seemingly opposing) variables as a new approach to tackling challenges of the day. Martin and Austen (1999) explained that viewing problems holistically, rather than piecing out their constituent parts, creates new possibilities—without making costly trade-offs or forcing the choice of one good idea at the expense of another—by rethinking and recombining elements of the issue to reach a better solution in the end. The practice of systems thinking, identified by Leithwood (2013) as especially important for leaders of schools and systems in his review of strong districts and their leadership, along with proactivity, supports an integrative thinking model. Defined as the ability to understand the dense, complex, and often reciprocal connections between different elements of the organization and the foresight to engage the organization in likely futures and consequences for action, this personal leadership resource is equally invaluable for educational leaders. The coordination of programs and (or) services offered to students and their families, for instance, will need to be increasingly seamless for institutions of public education to navigate their futures adeptly. The provision of supports for positive mental health and well-being is also an area that will most certainly require thoughtful consideration and careful integration so that the needs of students, staff, and school communities are addressed adequately.

As Leithwood and McCullough (2016) affirmed, leadership development programs that build the capacity of the leadership cadre within schools and systems—including principals and vice-principals, managers, and teacher leaders as well as supervisory officers and directors—is one of the most influential and impactful investments that institutions of public education trying to manage complex change can make. For professionals in both preservice and in-service contexts, leadership development will need to be sustained, and most likely enhanced, in the postpandemic reality. Knowledge, skills, and expertise that educational leaders develop for their own capacities—individually and collectively—will be increasingly vital in preparing leaders of schools and systems for the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous times they will assuredly experience. Leadership for equity, diversity, and inclusivity is a pertinent and timely example of a lens of leadership that will require individual and collective commitment over time. It is essential that educational leaders continue to learn about bias awareness and critical consciousness, for example, in the move forward as reflective practitioners.

There are many barriers to agility that educational leaders may encounter in school systems. Cross (2017) highlighted a lack of urgency as one of the most significant hurdles an organization might experience. Described as a struggle in short-term planning and (or) the communication of priorities within the plan, leaders of institutions of public education that lack agility do not have a clear vision of the activities to be completed over the next 12 months that will address the needs of the day and lay the foundation for success in the long term (three to five years ahead). Often coupled with a lack of urgency is the obstacle of unclear timelines. Systems that are unable to prioritize the array of initiatives or projects underway will undoubtedly err in the timelines designated to execute these tasks effectively and efficiently.

Other barriers to agility include a deficit-oriented culture, where leaders within these systems have become accustomed to a legacy of failure which breeds overly cautious, risk-averse behaviour. In these organizations, “no” is often a typical response to promising ideas that emerge from within, as Cross (2017) explained, making true innovation a rarity.

Furthermore, the notion of endless debate amongst senior leaders of school systems—without accompanying action—can summarily squelch attempts at thinking and moving quickly and easily as can a lack (or misuse) of resources and skills as they undermine the organization’s ability to be agile.

It has often been said that vision matters most when clarity is missing. With respect to the leadership of schools and systems—provincially, nationally, and internationally—the terrain of organizations has most definitely changed because of the global pandemic. The ability to navigate a different course of action through the disruption, creating new pathways along the lay of the land that represent school systems, requires agility on the part of educational leaders—an ability to think and understand quickly and to move smartly through the ever-evolving educational landscape. With respect to a leader’s continuous interactions with their multi-faceted environment, agility is especially valuable as time is often a scarce resource politically and pedagogically.

Interestingly, Gamwell and Daly (2017) disclosed that the realities of the current state of complexity are further confused because, during these uncertain times, changes push and pull in a multitude of directions all at once, making consensus building a daunting task to accomplish. This state of complexity makes future trends all the more difficult (if not impossible) to predict—yet another veritable challenge for educational leaders looking to lead their schools and systems. Chen et al. (2021) acknowledged that COVID-19 has induced the largest remote learning experiment in history over the past 12 months. Their examination of the remote experience on student learning, from the perspective of practicing teachers on the front lines, leaves many wondering as to how the sector deciphers the long-term impact of this protracted learning experiment. Chen et al. (2021) are convinced that the long-term implications of the pandemic will depend on the steps that school system leaders take now to mitigate and address the damage that has already been done. They suggest the offering of high-density tutoring or more personalized mastery-based programs, for example, as supports for students who may have fallen behind. Chen et al. (2021) stated definitively that a return to the status quo is a much less compelling option as educators have the opportunity now to reimagine a more equitable and resilient school system for all children. Further, Zewde et al. (2020) proclaimed that decisions made today in the context of COVID-19 will have long-term consequences for the future of education. Zewde et al. (2020) also stated that although COVID-19 has revealed vulnerabilities across the globe, it has also surfaced extraordinary human resourcefulness and potential. Zewde et al. (2020) urge that this is a time for pragmatism and quick action and that the choices ahead cannot abandon scientific evidence, nor can they be made without principled judgement. These choices must be based on a humanistic vision of education and development and human rights frameworks through notions that include the advancement of global solidarity to end current levels of inequality.

As the dust begins to settle on the newly created pathways through the terrain of our institutions of public education, next steps in the move forward for educational leaders will begin to take shape. Through a flexible yet focused approach that integrates the five interrelated factors outlined above as aspects of agility, educational leaders will surely find their own way through the disruption. Harris and Jones (2020) identified the importance of context-responsive leadership as well as crisis and change management as essential skills to navigate the paths ahead. Hargreaves and Fullan (2020) added that despite the chaos the pandemic has created, it has also unleashed energies of innovation and collaboration as well as a spirit of problem resolution through open professionalism and the utilization of digital opportunities to enhance existing professional capital and community, that all have the potential for significant positive impact.

Undoubtedly, the road before us will also require dedication and discipline on the part of educational leaders themselves. Interactions with the multi-faceted environments of schools and systems will need to be growth-oriented and opportunistic. In the current context, Quinn et al. (2021) confirmed an “asset lens” that recognizes strengths and invests belief in stakeholders, including student voice and staff expertise, will acknowledge learning gains as opposed to gaps solely. These interactions will build upon existing strengths in education, as well as in society more broadly, and appreciate all that has been acquired through the coronavirus era to resist the temptation to “snap back” into the old normal. This is an especially important point for consideration as life prepandemic was not smooth for all stakeholders, particularly underserved and vulnerable populations, as previously noted. A growth-oriented and opportunistic perspective will ensure that public education does not fall back into the “ruts” of past terrains—that new pathways are truly created for the complex and diversified roads to be travelled. The resilience shown by students, staff, and school communities in persevering with respect to both learning and well-being, to the greatest extent possible over the past year, represents but one example of a strength to celebrate—a true reflection of the robustness of our school systems prior to the disruption, imperfect as these systems may have been.

The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of colleagues, Dr. Cindy A. Finn, Director General of the Lester B. Pearson School Board, and Manny Figueiredo, Director of Education for the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, for their critical review of this chapter and for their encouragement and support throughout the process.