Running head: CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 1

Critical Pragmatism for 21st Century Learning: Evaluating Educational Leadership Perspectives

on the Shaping of a 21st Century Learning Reform

Meredith Mitchell

George Mason University

EDLE 803 Spring 2016

Dr. Sonya Douglass Horsford

CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 2

Abstract

Educational leaders utilize theories, perspectives, and paradigms to shape educational reform and

practice within schools. Our current educational paradigm situated in a positivist, accountability-

based culture incurs unintended, negative consequences for students and schools. The 21st

century learning reform aims to more authentically equip students with knowledge and skills that

are relevant for their futures and as the reform develops, it will be imperative for educational

leaders to be situated within a paradigm that serves to amplify positive outcomes and limit the

negative consequences students and schools currently experience. Critical pragmatism is a

hybrid of social relativist and traditional leadership theories and can provide a balanced lens

through which to implement, evaluate, and support learning around the 21st century learning

reform.

Keywords: leadership theory, 21st century learning

CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 3

Critical Pragmatism for 21st Century Learning: Evaluating Educational Leadership Perspectives

on the Shaping of a 21st Century Learning Reform

Todays educational culture is largely based in testing and accountability, resulting in

innumerable negative consequences (Au, 2007; Hursh, 2007; Cohen-Vogel & McLendon, 2009).

Federal and state mandates for educational accountability were not generated with the intention

to harm students; the theory that mandated testing requirements would drive higher academic

attainment was simply a faulty one. These unintended consequences have trickled down through

the educational tiers and persisted and many have called on the necessity of an educational

paradigm shift. One such reform movement is the 21st century learning reform that aims to equip

students with the skillsets that will be relevant for them in todays complex global economy (Kay

& Greenhill, 2011; Kay & Greenhill, 2012). While relevancy and authenticity are lofty and well

intentioned goals of the reform, it is necessary that we learn from our mistakes of the past and

consider the nature of the theories, perspectives, and paradigms that will ultimately shape this

reform from a set of goals into actual practice. It is necessary for educational leaders to utilize a

holistic perspective that will help them navigate the process of a complex and amorphous reform.

(Gunn & Hollingsworth, 2013). In the midst of an educational system in crisis, it has become

problematic that no one leadership theory or paradigm has emerged to help mediate the negative

effects of the accountability movement and serve as a guiding set of principles for the

implementation of a new 21st century learning reform.

Of the many theories and perspectives that have emerged in educational leadership in the

last century, critical pragmatism is a theory that triangulates the social relativist, traditional, and

positivist and economic perspectives that currently dominate the field (Bourgeois, 2011). With

the emergence of a promising new educational reform, it is imperative to examine how critical
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 4

pragmatism balances the characteristics of multiple leadership perspectives and to understand

how critically pragmatic leaders could implement 21st century learning in ways that benefit all

students. This literature review will explore how the predominant educational paradigms have

served as the foundation for the critical pragmatic perspective and will also explore the utility of

this paradigm as a driver for the implementation of 21st century learning. The proposed

relationships between leadership paradigms and 21st century learning will serve as a foundation

for future research on examining the practices of critical pragmatic leaders that are implementing

a 21st century learning reform (see Appendix for a concept map that illustrates these

relationships). In this paper, I will first explore three primary paradigms that have typified

educational leadership theory to date and how the new critical pragmatic perspective synthesizes

and balances these perspectives. I will then examine the key characteristics and implementation

processes of the 21st century learning reform and how such processes might be shaped through a

critical pragmatic lens.

Predominant Paradigms of Educational Leadership

Three major educational leadership paradigms formulate unique lenses for the

educational leaders that employ them and can shape the decision making process and reform

implementation accordingly. The three paradigms, the economic/positivist perspective, the

traditional leadership perspective, and the social relativist perspective designate specific goals

and emphasize distinct aspects of leadership practices. Educational leaders that exist within these

paradigms, including school based administrators, instructional coaches, teacher leaders, and

district and state level administrators, are critical to influencing the instruction and assessment

that occur within classrooms, which in turn, directly impacts student learning (Leithwood,

Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). These leaders have the responsibility to be
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 5

aware of the ways in which their educational lens shapes their practice; not just in terms of

academic outcomes, but also through other unintended consequences (Anderson, 2009).

Economic/ Positivist Perspective

Positivism is a philosophy that is characterized by the understanding that all things can be

understood absolutely through the process of scientific inquiry and quantitative data collection

and analysis (Bourgeois, 2011). It is a rational perspective that focuses on the economics of the

issues and relies on measurement to inform data driven decision making. The positivist and

economic perspective best describes the current state of American public education when

considering the legislation at the federal and state levels that intend to inform educational

improvement (Hursh, 2007). While this paradigm based in accountability is not new, the

developing research on this approachs outcomes has sparked educational reformers to consider

the many impacts of such a paradigm on our nations young people, particularly through its role

in emphasizing standardized assessment (Hursh, 2007; Au, 2007).

In the early 20th century, standardized assessments were widely used to track classes

within schools and for evaluative purposes in elementary and secondary schools (Resnick, 1981).

Achievement tests were largely implemented at a local district level, but by 1930, state-wide

programs emerged, however they were not generally employed for the purposes of retaining

students or for driving educational program changes (Resnick, 1981). In the 1960s, the civil

rights movement inspired a wave of educational reform in order to promote more equal

opportunities within the public school system (Resnick, 1980). The Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was passed during the Johnson administration and educational

testing came into the limelight as a means by which educational reform could be guided

(Resnick, 1980). Along with the targeted distribution of federal education aid to impoverished
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 6

areas, the ESEA was revised four times in fifteen years to address needs of those who were

educationally disadvantaged (Thomas & Brady, 2005). The new federal voice in education called

for some standardized measure to look at academic performance in schools. While the Reagan

years retracted a significant amount of federal involvement in education, the publication A

Nation at Risk called upon states to reform their educational policies and require more

accountability for higher academic standards (Thomas & Brady, 2005). Again in 1988,

academic testing assumed an even greater role as ESEA was amended that Title 1 funds would

now be allocated based on standardized test scores (Thomas & Brady, 2005). Over the next

decade, President George H. W. Bush and his successor, President Bill Clinton, continued to

build on a paradigm of educational reform based in standards based achievement testing

(Thomas & Brady, 2005). Their respective programs, America 2000 and Goals 2000: Educate

America Act, perpetuated a need for and reliance on standardized testing data for content area

knowledge (Thomas & Brady, 2005). Through this historical lens, the trend is abundantly clear:

the positivist approach of using standardized educational testing has been assuming an

increasingly important role throughout our history in an effort to motivate increased student

success and enforce higher amounts of accountability (Hursh, 2007). Our nation first

experienced the pervasive influence of the federal government in education in 1968, with the

passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which over time and multiple

iterations, has evolved to what we now know as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (Fuller,

Wright, Gesicki & Kang, 2007). In the earliest conception, ESEA laid the groundwork for

approaching education more systematically, highlighting the needs for more standardized

accountability measures so that policy makers and educational stakeholders could monitor the

effects of various programs and funding measures (Fuller, Wright, Gesicki & Kang, 2007). As
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 7

the federal government became increasingly entwined with education at the state and district

level over time, so increased the stakes of these tests, the emphasis placed on standardized

testing, and the attention devoted to students demonstrating memorization of and proficiency in

reproducing curriculum content knowledge (Au, 2007; Hursh, 2007).

While such a system of accountability and standardization has merit in allowing us one

way to understand what students have learned in schools, this highly technical-rational

framework is shortsighted in terms of understanding the work being done within schools and the

holistic growth and development of children as a result of their schooling (Supovitz, 2009). The

positivist and economic perspective is necessarily highly quantitative in terms of its

methodology; an underlying principle of positivism is the notion that we may collect data to gain

knowledge of our reality (Bourgeois, 2011). Reducing a child to a single test score fails to

recognize the full gamut of values and skills the education system provides young people; an

economic perspective (Hanushek, 2009) simply cannot encapsulate the complexity of human

growth and development (Desimone, 2009). The high stakes associated with educational testing

results in the unnecessary narrowing of curriculum and instruction within schools and often fails

to recognize the academic strengths of populations of students, particularly those with special

learning needs and English Language Learners (Au, 2007).

Alternatively, there is a large body of research that points to the merits of collecting

standardized data about students for the purposes of accountability and informing instruction

(Buck, Ritter, Jensen & Rose, 2010). Qualitative teacher accounts have noted the stresses that

arise from a test centric culture, but such benefits as using data as a roadmap for future

instruction and facilitating collaboration among teacher teams have been cited, as well (Buck,

Ritter, Jensen & Rose, 2010). Additionally, some studies have pointed to the ways that
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 8

summative testing can actually encourage the use of effective teaching methods for improving

academic achievement (Williamson, Bondy, Langley & Mayne, 2005). While the literature

demonstrates the negative consequences of standardized testing, there is evidence that testing

and accountability can inspire positive educational consequences, at least within certain contexts.

While there are some noted benefits, these benefits are not reason enough to universally justify

practices that evidentially perpetuate inequity and result in other negative classroom

consequences (Au, 2007). This current positivist paradigm realized through our reliance on

standardized assessment, while well intended, is laden with inadequacy and calls reformers to

action in considering educational improvement through a new paradigmatic lens.

Traditional Leadership Perspectives

Traditional and contemporary leadership theories support the inclusion of evidence

beyond that of quantitative data and rationalism, and instead incorporate the understanding that

the leaders themselves and their organizations are integral factors in generating educational

changes (Levin & Datnow, 2012). In the last 100 years, social science research has generated

and explored theories that focus on leaders, their decision making, their contexts, and the nature

of those they are leading (De Bevoise, 1984). Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe conducted a series of

meta-analyses to compare the effects of leadership types and uncovered the types and leadership

dimensions that produce moderate to strong effects on student learning (2008). The analyses

looked at theories including instructional leadership, transformational leadership and other

traditional and contemporary theories and established practices such as goal setting and

delineating expectations, evaluating teaching and participating in teacher learning, and

establishing a supportive environment, that are inherent to these traditional leadership theories

(Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Their significant findings purport that leadership
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 9

perspectives and related practices do incur significant changes in student achievement. The

researched utility of these specific leadership theories serve as the basis for inclusion in the

evaluation of this educational paradigm.

Traditional leadership theories have changed over time, and historically placed emphasis

on the traits and situations of the acting leaders themselves (Perrow, 1973). The situational,

contingency, and trait theories of the mid-20th century emphasized the characteristics and role of

the leader within their contexts, and placed the impetus on leaders to elicit desired behaviors

from their subordinates. Transactional leadership theory similarly requires the leader to engage

in social interaction with constituents, build relationships and monitor practices, and reinforce

high expectations. This theory later was viewed as limited which brought forth a new expanded

theory of transformational leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The level of charisma and

assertion of the educational leader in these theories was important and leaders were revered as

the heroes when organizational successes were realized (Gronn, 2008).

Traditional leadership theory progressed through the later part of the 20th century and

early 21st century to more greatly include the leadership capacity of the school and organization

(Perrow, 1973), giving rise to such theories as transformational leadership, distributed

leadership, and instructional leadership. In Leithwood and Jantzis meta-analysis of over 32

studies on transformational leadership between 1996 and 2005, they demonstrated the indirect

effects transformational leadership may have on student outcomes (2005). While their research

points to the utility of the leadership model, they address the notion that the theory should not

remain stagnant and should be subjected to changes as the world changes over time (Leithwood

& Jantzi, 2005). Transformational leadership in its purist sense has theoretical shortcomings and

should incorporate new concepts as the literature grows (Marks & Printy, 2003). A related
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 10

theory, distributed leadership, outlines how the reconfiguration of leadership can build capacity

within an organization, and an empirically demonstrated link between the reconceptualization of

leadership and school improvement exists (Harris, 2004). While distributed leadership by

definition implies that decision making involves people in an organization in the decision

making, the democratic processes and hybridization of leadership, while promising, are not

largely innovative or disparate from other contemporary theories (Gronn, 2008). Instructional

leadership has also emerged as one of the predominant educational leadership theories and

focuses on goal orientation, involving principals into the curriculum, and monitoring instruction

and maintaining visibility (Hallinger, 2005). This integrative approach is not strictly rational but

relies heavily on factors that are non-rational and contextual, including school culture (Hallinger,

2005). Instructional leadership is highly participative and while there is much literature on the

singular connections of the instructional leadership of teachers, principals, and instructional

coaches to student learning, there is little understanding of the interconnectedness of these

educational players (Neumerski, 2013). These modern approaches of transformational,

distributed, and instructional leadership demonstrate utility and value when considering student

achievement outcomes, but these larger organizational perspectives still beg the question of

where the social factors of individual students fit in the educational picture.

While the more contemporary leadership theories look more holistically at the

organization as opposed to the role of the leader, the traditional leadership paradigm simply

acknowledges the existence of contextual differences in school populations and neglects to

uncover the deep structures embedded within society that impact students access to equitable

educational opportunities (Scanlan & Theoharis, 2016). Traditional leadership theories put

student outcomes at the forefront, but without explicitly and purposefully delving into contextual
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 11

factors such as race, gender, social status, and economics, results in a paradigm that fails to

acknowledge all the variables that impact student success across all types of diverse student

populations (Scanlan & Theoharis, 2016). The apparent shortcomings of this leadership

paradigm is what has paved the way for the emergence of social relativist theories that attend to

the differing contexts, strengths, and needs of all school communities and students.

Social Relativist Perspectives

The diversity of American schools and students has necessitated that educators consider

the role of social factors on educational reform and improvement (Scanlan & Theoharis, 2016).

The inherent structures and biases embedded in Americas social system calls upon educational

leaders to identify ways schools and school leaders may serve to promote social justice, be

culturally relevant, and become transformative for students. The social relativist perspective

requires that we not simply acknowledge differences, but understand that the experiences of

different populations are relative (Bourgeois, 2011). Theories in this perspective implore leaders

to consider marginalized populations, including the structures they are up against, and put equity

at the forefront of educational change.

Culturally relevant leadership is a social relativist framework that aims to identify beliefs

and expand cultural knowledge to promote more inclusive and critical pedagogy and practice, as

well as target educational improvements for underperforming students in marginalized

populations (Gay, 2013; Nelson & Guerra, 2014; Aronson & Laughter, 2014). The research

from Nelson and Guerra demonstrate the need for addressing teacher beliefs and gauging cultural

knowledge in their study where teachers responded to cultural clashes in written scenarios

(2014). The teachers demonstrated an awareness of cultural differences, but misunderstood or

were ignorant to more nuanced cultural norms that influenced the situations as they were
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 12

described. These teachers largely employed deficit thinking in their responses regarding the

marginalized populations which highlights the need for cultural education of our educator

workforce. Nelson and Guerras findings regarding the utility of culturally relevant education

are further supported by Aronson and Laughter analysis of 45 studies that included at least some

of the 12 markers of culturally relevant education (including reflection, discourse, cultural

competence, critique of discourse, discussions of power and empowerment) which illuminated

myriad benefits of the approach (2016). These outcomes included increases in student

motivation, interest in the content areas, and the ability to engage in discourse regarding the

content, the empowerment of students own self perceptions, and also more confidence when

taking standardized tests (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).

Social justice theory is another social relativist perspective that emphasizes equity,

inclusion, integration, and respect while dispelling the assumption that educational attainment is

simply meritocratic (Theoharis, 2007; Capper & Young, 2014; DeMatthews & Mawhinney,

2014). Theoharis explored how school principals that ascribe to this orientation make issues of

race, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and marginalizing factors the

focus of their leadership practice (2007). Theoharis discussed with social justice principals the

process of prioritizing inclusion in their buildings and the resulting resistance and

discouragement this process incurs (2007). The researcher and principals explain that social

justice is not just a process of employing good leadership; social justice leadership must go

beyond the traditional leadership approach and actively prioritize the needs of the most

struggling students (Theoharis, 2007). A cross case study of two principals that employ social

justice perspectives also demonstrate the struggles they face in prioritizing inclusion, namely for

students with disabilities and English language learners, against the structural constraints of their
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 13

district policies (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014). The goals of social justice are admirable

and purposeful, but are faced with considerable adversity.

Another predominant social relativist theory is transformative theory. While there is

some similarity in name and some convergence of intent with transformational leadership,

transformative leadership puts questions of power and authority in focus throughout the

educational process (Shields, 2010). Transformative leadership also holds considerable overlap

with social justice theory (Shields, 2010; Brown, 2004), but highlights the democratic reasons for

equity in addition to justice for the good of individuals (Shields, 2010). Brown espouses the

merits of reflection, discourse and praxis in a transformative framework, but also introduces the

notion that disparate theories and models can often be incomplete and by merging strategies,

leaders who act as agents of change can be enabled (Brown, 2004). This orientation towards a

synthesis of theories holds utility in our world, particularly as the nation becomes more diverse

and the problems of our society become more complex.

Social relativist perspectives intentionally focus on the social factors that impact all

students access to equitable education. The characteristics of the social relativist leadership

paradigm are vitally important to informing leadership practices and coupled with the traditional

leadership theories and an understanding of the mechanisms of our current positivist paradigm, a

comprehensive educational paradigm may emerge.

Critical Pragmatism: An Emergent, Balanced Perspective

Critical pragmatism can function as a triangulation of current educational paradigms that

offer the utility of all three lenses and can limit the inherent shortcomings of individual theories

(Bhola, 2002). A balance of the positivist, traditional and social relativist perspectives represents

a holistic perspective that is encapsulated in the term critical pragmatism. Enabling leaders to
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 14

better understand their situations and providing them with multiple techniques for solving the

problems they encounter will be vital, especially as a new discourse is sought to replace our

current means-ends rationality (Biesta & Mirn, 2002, p.101). Leaders today are required to

mediate both ethical and political situations, and a postmodern perspective, such as critical

pragmatism, allows for this balance (Biesta & Mirn, 2002). Bhola (2002) writes:

The point is made that we need a grand reflection on both our paradigms of reality and

our predicaments of life as lived, to deal with the discontent of humanity at this moment

of the history of our civilization, and to engage in praxis to act on our world and to

reconstruct it to make it moral, just and more humane. To undertake such a grand

reflection, we need a practical philosophy of knowledge that is, a practical

epistemology to bridge across the multiple epistemological approaches now crowding

our discussions. (p.181)

In this definition, it is evident that the rationality and practicality inherent to the positivist

and traditional perspectives must be tempered with the morality and humanness inherent in

social relativism. This synthesized paradigm, critical pragmatism, is a perspective which Bhola

describes as a means through which to champion globalization with a human face (2002, p.

189). This perspective is not exclusionary of positivism, but allows for positivist approaches to

exist as one of many data sources in painting the picture of a particular context (Bhola, 2002;

Bourgeois, 2011). The context should not be considered in separation from our history, power

dynamics, or cultural differences (Bourgeois, 2011). In the intersection of positivism and social

consciousness, the scholar and practitioner function as one to generate knowledge-of-practice

not knowledge-for-practice and is then a creator of local theory (Bourgeois, 2011). Local

theory is the critical pragmatists generation of knowledge through inquiry while preserving the
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 15

values, consciousness, and morality of the social community (Bourgeois, 2011). The merger of

the seemingly opposing paradigms of our educational past can result in the balanced lens of

critical pragmatism through which leaders can interpret decision contexts and make

transformative changes.

Relevancy of Educational Theory for the 21st Century Learning Reform

The 21st century learning reform is a promising educational reform, pending its

appropriate interpretation by educational leaders. Educational leaders at many levels serve a

critical role in influencing the direction and vision of schools as well as the quality of instruction

and assessment that occur within classrooms (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, &

Wahlstrom, 2004). These leaders are driven by the educational paradigms in which they are

situated; which means understanding the implications of educational leadership theory is

imperative for understanding how a particular educational reform might unfold. Critical

pragmatism may offer the appropriate lens through which leaders may effectively define and

implement a reform, engage in supervision and evaluation, and provide professional

development for reform implementation, given that it allows for the acknowledgement of the

complex forces at play within education (Bourgeois, 2011). As the complex 21st century

learning reform emerges as a viable alternative to our current educational structure, it will be

necessary to explore the potential utility of interpreting the reform through an equally

multidimensional leadership lens, such as critical pragmatism. By reviewing the literature on

21st century learning and proposing the interpretation of this framework through a critical

pragmatic perspective, we may understand the reform in a way that broadly and comprehensively

attends to the complex factors of our educational world.

Defining the 21st Century Learning Reform

CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 16

The term 21st century skill has been used in several different frameworks to encapsulate a

group of skills that students will need to be successful in the future (Kay & Greenhill, 2011; Kay

& Greenhill, 2012). The disparate frameworks have resulted in some ambiguity and a clear

definition of vital skillsets will be necessary as schools proceed to adopt reforms aimed at

infusing these skillsets into curricular programs. The Partnership for 21st Century (P21), the

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and other worldwide

organizations have identified skillsets that will be relevant in the workforce today through

research in actual career fields (Kay & Greenhill, 2011; Kay & Greenhill, 2012; Voogt & Roblin,

2010; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). While P21 organizes the research into the four broad categories

of collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking, P21 has also promoted student

directed instructional delivery models, such as project-based learning, and administrative

practices that inherently encourage use of these skills (Kay & Greenhill, 2011; Kay & Greenhill,

2012). Luterbach and Brown recognized the need for disambiguation of the 21st century skill

concept (2011). This study synthesized expert input from both academics and practitioners.

While the findings largely encapsulate the skillsets identified by P21, Luterbach and Browns

findings more greatly emphasize the role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

in a 21st century curriculum (2011).

Voogt and Roblin address the conceptual differences through the examination of multiple

21st century frameworks and found that the frameworks largely converge on a similar group of

skills, even if the terminology or the relative importance somewhat differs (Voogt & Roblin,

2012). This study synthesized key manuscripts from 21st century frameworks worldwide, and

the largely convergent findings are encouraging, considering the divergence of the literature and

terminology could be seen as problematic for those wishing to organize and implement a 21st
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 17

century reform. Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, and Terry also synthesized 21st century learning

frameworks in attempt to find convergences and to conceptualize the literature base (2013). The

researchers engaged in the qualitative process of constant comparison of 15 different documents

from different 21st century organizations and frameworks. The coded manuscripts were

organized hierarchically into categories that then formed the basis of a conceptual model that

was generated as a result of the synthesis. The researchers organized the elements of 21st century

learning into three domains: foundational knowledge (what students are to know, including ICT

skills, core content, and cross-disciplinary knowledge), humanistic knowledge (what students

value, including life skills, ethics, and cultural competence), and meta knowledge (how students

will act, including creativity, problem solving, and communication and collaboration). While the

researchers synthesis process did not necessarily yield any new understanding, their

simplification of disparate frameworks is helpful in conceptualizing the 21st century learning

framework.

The National Research Council (NRC) generated perhaps the widest synthesis of 21st

century learning through an Education for Life and Work Report (2012). The NRC report did

not restrict their synthesis to just 21st century learning, but also encapsulated the related fields of

deeper learning, college and career readiness, and student centered learning to merge

related understandings. The NRCs report utilized the research base to identify 21st century

skills in conjunction with content and knowledge in an effort to categorically define their three

deeper learning competency domains: cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal (2012). The

deeper learning competencies highly correlate to the other conceptions of 21st century skills, but

also incorporate an understanding of transfer and deeper learning of content. This

conceptualization of skillsets is perhaps the richest in that it does not look at skillsets in isolation,
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 18

but rather as a package or vehicle for accessing curriculum and transferable knowledge. The

utility of the NRCs work stems from its unification of similar concepts that consolidate

knowledge from different educational fields.

The connection of 21st century learning to actual jobs and careers is inherent to its intent,

and Soule and Warricks work uses this intention as a means through which to link 21st century

learning to Career and Technical Education (CTE), which is rooted in providing authentic

training in myriad vocations (2015). Hubbard and McDonald formulate this connection of CTE

to 21st century preparedness, by demonstrating in their research how hands on training for a

future career can provide youth with skillsets that are defined as being relevant to the students

futures (2014). This clearly defined connection is missing from some 21st century frameworks,

but recognition of the connection is notable. While it is not discernible whether learners must

engage in 21st century competencies in direct relation to careers and vocations throughout their

education, the connection is credible and the validity of the argument might be further explored.

The literature that aims to define 21st century skills are both divergent and convergent and

while the terminology and framing in current use differs, it does not seem that this should serve

as an obstacle for implementation and practice. This literature base is amorphous and subjective

and the convergence of meaning (despite a divergence of terminology) points to the notion that a

school system need only to frame a research based conception of 21st century learning using their

preferred terminology, as the underlying concepts are largely the same.

Educational leaders will necessarily engage in interpretation of this reform through their

specific leadership lenses, and the synthesis of literature on defining a 21st century is wrought

with ambiguity and variability depending on the context. This potentially demonstrates that a

rigid, positivist leadership perspective could prove intolerant and inflexible to the inherent
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 19

variance and be an ill-suited interpretive lens for educational leaders. Conversely, a balanced

leadership perspective, as proposed in the critical pragmatic paradigm, would incorporate the

practical considerations of traditional leadership perspectives and the social considerations of

social relativist perspectives to address the multifaceted and complex nature that defines 21st

century learning.

Key Levers of Promoting and Sustaining 21st Century Learning

Schools and divisions that adopt a 21st century school reform will employ key levers that

will dictate the extent to which the adoption is sustained. The literature points to the importance

of implementation, evaluation and supervision, and professional development as mechanisms

through which leaders can promote integration and sustenance of the 21st century learning

reform.

Implementation of an educational reform occurs through instructional delivery models

which directly impacts the lives of the student learner (Soule & Warrick, 2015). The literature

base frequently emphasizes the need for instructional delivery to take place in student centered

learning environments as opposed to teacher centric structures. Soule and Warrick underscore

the need for skillsets that apply in a new globalized economy and illustrate how P21s

conception of theses skillsets are occurring in schools around the country, whose practices can

serve as exemplars for other schools (2015). Their research addresses the need for distributed

leadership, student agency, research and evidence, an engaged community, and a climate of

achievement to play a role in promoting positive student outcomes (Soule & Warrick, 2015).

Instructional delivery configurations are also explored by Donovan, Green, and Mason through

their use of a Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) Innovation Configuration (IC) Map

(2009). CBAM was used to construct and delineate the key features of a 21st century
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 20

environment and how these characteristics are operationalized. The researchers emphasize that

21st century learning can take place in both content based (teacher centric) or project based

(student centered) configurations as long as the culture of the environment is conducive to

promoting a 21st Century Ecology. This ecology includes the inclusion of school programs,

effective school and community communication networks, and classroom characteristics that aim

to promote collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking. The researchers

ecological findings are significant because it will be imperative for future teachers to understand

the characteristics of a 21st century learning environment in order to develop relevant curriculum

and engage in authentic instruction.

In the same way that implementation must suit the development of skillsets in students,

evaluation and supervision of the reform must as well. Teachers are the direct link to and have

the greatest impact on students and educational leaders should be engaged in the evaluation and

supervision of teachers through an effective teacher evaluation system (Accomplished California

Teachers, 2015). Many evaluation systems hold little utility in developing the teachers capacity,

and the Accomplished California Teachers group collaborated on elements that evaluation

systems should include to generate a supervision policy that holds more utility (2015). The

Accomplished California Teachers group recommendations include linking evaluation to actual

teaching standards, the inclusion of performance assessments within the classroom, the

consideration of an array of student outcomes, frequent completion by trained educational

experts, consistent and usable feedback that directly links to professional development, and the

incorporation of the innovative practices in current use (Accomplished California Teachers,

2015). For evaluation and supervision in a 21st century reform, it will be imperative to delineate
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 21

the key practices inherent to the reform and ensure that these practices are in turn represented in

an evaluation system that meets these high standards for utility.

Professional development will also serve as a key lever for promoting a 21st century

learning reform. A significant educational paradigm shift will necessitate both leadership and

teachers to participate in learning around the reform, and this learning can be enhanced when

teachers and leadership engage in professional learning together (Robinson & Timperley, 2007).

In their study, the researchers used a process of backwards mapping from studies that had

indicated positive student outcomes were a result of professional development. From the 17

studies that were analyzed, themes of forming an educational direction, fostering a culture of

learning for continued improvement, constructive engagement in discussing problems, and the

selection and use of smart tools (resources for communication and documentation that are

utilized by a school) all were factors in successful professional development. An understanding

of the development and engagement of effective professional development that yields actual

results in students will be crucial in educating and changing a staff to a focus on 21st century

learning.

Voogt and Roblin emphasize all three levers, implementation, evaluation and

supervision, and professional development, for a 21st century reform and discuss the implications

for educational leaders (2010). A total of 59 documents were searched and of these, 32 were

selected based on analytic criteria aligned to the research questions related to skills and

competencies, implementation, and assessment. Key features and implications were extracted

from the documents, aligned into tables, and provided to five experts in the field for further

discussion. Their recommendations, insights, and interpretations were documented. The

synthesis and analysis from the experts yielded major findings for the framework of 21st century
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 22

reform, however the recommendations within the domains of implementation and professional

development were largely vague research directions that call upon educational leaders to resolve,

highlighting the nascent state of the field and the need to conduct further research into what

works for schools and students.

The three key levers of promoting and sustaining 21st century learning (implementation,

evaluation and supervision, and professional development), will be shaped by the educational

leaders that interpret the reform. A critical pragmatic perspective might allow for

implementation and evaluation processes that balance the practical needs of the organization

with the incorporation of socially responsive practices. Professional development through a

critically pragmatic lens would also attend to the needs of the organization, yet be tempered by

the needs of individuals and contexts in which they are utilized. While an understanding of what

this entails may not yet be uncovered, it will be important for a complex and integrative

leadership paradigm to be used to interpret the impending reforms implementation, evaluation

and supervision, and professional development practices.

Significance and Implications

The synthesis of the literature bases around leadership theories and the implementation of

the 21st century learning reform can inform the understanding of how educational leaders

effectively lead their organization through a process of integrating 21st century skills into the

classroom. Educational leaders of all levels will be instrumental in diverting the emphasis away

from standardized assessment and high stakes testing within schools and towards practices that

promote valuable learning experiences for students as they prepare for their futures. While this

21st century movement is divergent and complex, it is important for leaders to develop some

conception of what skills will be relevant for students and understand the competencies that
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 23

should be incorporated into their schools vision and practice (Gunn & Hollingsworth, 2013).

With this understanding, educational leaders then must navigate ways in which to help teachers

implement and evaluate for a new curricular focus, and must provide professional development

to promote growth within their teachers. The efficacy of their complex navigation will be

contingent on the paradigm through which they view education. Researchers and scholars will

serve vital roles in exploring the relationship between these leadership theories and actual

consequences and outcomes in practice. These practices, rather than the model itself, have the

most important implications for schools and organizations (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Given our

historical context and the current state of social relativist and more traditional leadership theory,

it would seem that critical pragmatism holds utility as a balanced lens through which to guide the

reform process.

Future research may contribute to the scholarly knowledge of how critical pragmatic

approaches shape schools, classrooms, and students in accessing a more relevant and authentic

21st century curriculum. This literature review lays the groundwork for studies that uncover how

a critical pragmatist educational leader interprets the often conflicting aims of various leadership

lenses, and how these tensions are navigated in order to shape the practices inherent to a 21st

century reform. This role of educational leaders as mediators continues to be critically

important while accountability structures still impact educational practice (Au, 2007; Hursh,

2007) and social hierarchies impinge on the opportunities of minority groups (Scanlan &

Theoharis, 2016), but a generation of holistically visionary leaders guided by a critically

pragmatic perspective may uncover the practices necessary to mitigate these educational ills so

that 21st century learning might benefit all our nations students.
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 24

References

Accomplished California Teachers. (2015). A coherent system of teacher evaluation for quality

teaching. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 23(17), 1-22.

Anderson, G. (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. New

York: Routledge.

Aronson, B. & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A

synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86, 163-206.

DOI: 10.3102/0034654315582066

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis.

Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X07306523

Bhola, H.S. (2002). A discourse on educational leadership: Global themes, postmodern

perspectives. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 181-202.

Biesta, G.J.J. & Mirn, L.F. (2002). The discourses on educational leadership: An introduction.

Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 101-107.

Bourgeois, N. (2011). An epistemology of leadership perspective: Examining the fit for a

critical pragmatic approach. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5, 371-384.

Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative

framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40,77108.

Buck, S., Ritter, G., Jensen, N., & Rose, C. (2010). Teachers say the most interesting things- an

alternative view of testing. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 50-54.

Capper, C.A. & Young, M.D. (2014). Ironies and limitations of educational leadership for social

justice: A call to social justice educators. Theory into Practice, 53, 158-164. DOI:

10.1080/00405841.2014.885814
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 25

Cohen-Vogel, L. & McLendon, M. (2009). New approaches to understanding federal

involvement in education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of

Education Policy Research (735-748). NY: Routledge.

De Bevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader.

Educational Leadership, 41 (5), 14-20.

DeMatthews, D. & Mawhinney, H. (2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring

challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 50, 844-881. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X13514440

Desmione, L. (2009). Complementary methods for policy research. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider &

D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (163-175). NY: Routledge.

Donovan, L., Green, T., & Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st century classroom: Developing

an innovation configuration map. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50, 161-

178. DOI: 10.2190/EC.50.2.a

Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: how to judge no child

left behind? Educational Researcher, 36(5), 268-278.

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 48-70.

DOI:10.1111/curi.12002

Gay, G., & Kirkiand, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in

preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3),181-187

Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration,

46, 146-158. DOI: 10.1108/09578230810863235

CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 26

Gunn, T. & Hollingsworth, M. (2013). The implementation and assessment of shared 21st

century learning vision: A district-based approach. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 45(3), 201-228. DOI:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782603

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that

refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239. DOI:

10.1080/15700760500244793

Hanushek, E. A. (2009). The economic value of education and cognitive skills. In G. Sykes, B.

Schneider & D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (39-56). NY:

Routledge.

Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading?

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32, 11-24. DOI:

10.1177/1741143204039297

Hubbard, L. & McDonald, M. (2014). The viability of combining academic and career pathways:

A study of linked learning. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19, 1-19.

doi: 10.1080/10824669.2014.943759

Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education

policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518.

Kay, K. & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. In G. Wan

& D. Gut (Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st century (pp. 41-65). Netherlands:

Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4_3

Kay, K. & Greenhill, V. (2012) The leaders guide to 21st century education: 7 steps for schools

and districts (pp. xiii-23). New Jersey: Pearson Resources for 21st Century Learning.
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 27

Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth:

Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher

Education, 29, 127-140. DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research

1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199. DOI:

10.1080/15700760500244769

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership

influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A

meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly,

48, 387-423. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X11436268

Levin, J.A. & Datnow, A. (2012). The principal role in data-driven decision making: Using case-

study data to develop multi-mediator models of educational reform. School Effectiveness

and School Improvement, 23, 179-201. DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2011.599394

Luterbach, K. & Brown, C. (2011). Education for the 21st century. International Journal of

Applied Educational Studies, 11, 14-32.

Marks, H.M. & Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An

integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 39, 370-397.

National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable

knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and

21st Century Skills, J.W. Pellegrino & M.L. Hilton (Ed.). Washington, DC: The National

Academics Press.
CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 28

Nelson, S.W. & Guerra, P.L. (2014). Educator beliefs and cultural knowledge: Implications for

school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 67-95. DOI:

10.1177/0013161X13488595

Neumerski, C. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about

principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?

Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347. DOI:

10.1177/0013161X12456700

Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational

Dynamics, 2, 2-15.

Resnick, D. (1981). Educational policy and the applied historian: Testing, competency and

standards. Journal of Social History, 14, 539-559.

Resnick, D. (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. Review of Research

in Education, 8, 3-29.

Robinson, V.M., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student

outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects on leadership types. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08321509

Robinson, V. & Timperley, H. (2007). The leadership of the improvement of teaching and

learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian Journal

of Education, 51, 247-262.

Scanlan, M. & Theoharis, G. (2016). Introduction to special issue- intersectionality: Promoting

social justice while navigating multiple dimensions of diversity. Journal of Cases in

Educational Leadership, 19, 3-5. DOI: 10.1177/1555458915625069

CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 29

Shields, C.M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 558-589. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X10375609

Soule, H. & Warrick, T. (2015). Defining 21st century readiness for all students: What we know

and how to get there. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 178-186.

DOI:10.1037/aca0000017

Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from

the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10,

211-227.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward of theory of

social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221-258.

Thomas, J. & Brady, K. (2005). The Elementary Education Act at 40: Equity, accountability, and

the evolving federal role in public education. Review of Research in Education, 29, 51-

67.

Voogt, J. & Roblin, N. (2010). 21st century skills. (Discussion paper). Enschede, NL: University

of Twente. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from

http://archief.kennisnet.nl/fileadmin/contentelementen/kennisnet/Bestanden_Feddo/21st-

Century-Skills.pdf

Voogt, J. & Roblin, N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st

century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. DOI:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

Williamson, P., Bondy, E., Langley, L., & Mayne, D. (2005). Meeting the challenge of high-

stakes testing while remaining child-centered: the representations of two urban teachers.

Childhood Education, 81(4), 190-195.

CRITICAL PRAGMATIC REFORM 30

Appendix

Concept Map: Critical Pragmatic Leadership for 21st Century Learning