UNLOCKING LEADERSHIP TO SUSTAIN INVITATIONAL EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS: LESSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Prof GM Steyn
School of Education
University of South Africa

ABSTRACT

Recent conceptions of educational leadership demonstrate a move away from traditional authoritarian models of decision-making towards more collegial views on role relations between principals and their staff.  Many educators maintain that Invitational Education (IE) represents one such conception by providing a structured, systematic educational delivery system and a strategy to create a school environment of caring, support and trust. This article describes a qualitative study of the role of principals and staff in four schools in the Scott County district and one school in Fayette County in Kentucky and five schools in New Mexico in the United States of America.  These schools were selected for investigation because they had been awarded the prestigious Inviting School Award from the International Alliance for Invitational Education. 

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally it was assumed that only top managers had the competence to make decisions and that staff were hired to do what managers instructed  them to do. There was an emphasis on direction and control, a preference for mechanisation and the treatment of staff as an extension of the machine.

More recent conceptions of educational leadership demonstrate a move away from authoritarian models of decision-making towards more collegial views on role relations between school principals and staff.  The all-powerful control of principal is giving way to a situation where staff members are encouraged to make meaningful decisions in schools.  According to Fullan (Sparks, 2003b:57), the single factor common to effective change is that relationships are enhanced.  When this happens, schools improve. If relationships are poor, ground is lost .  Invitational Education (IE) seeks to assist people in their relationships with others.  Moreover, the relationships of the adults who inhabit a school have more to do with the school’s quality and character and with the accomplishments of its learners than any other factor.

Principals who transform schools as organisations into something more participative and inviting always go through a shift in their thinking about their staff members and themselves. This transformation encourages shared responsibility and a leadership style that will create an interactive, inviting working environment. Education must involve staff so that they feel empowered. Constantly controlling staff is contrary to their developmental needs and creates a disinviting climate. Furthermore, where leadership is shared, collaboration can be more effective than an organisation dominated by a single individual.  Collaboration is given an essential component of IE which is a radical departure from the traditional paradigm.

This paper describes the way in which inviting schools have succeeded in leadership and staff collaboration with a view to creating an inviting school environment.  The main research question of the study described in this paper is: What role does school leadership and staff play in sustaining inviting schools?  

WHAT IS INVITATIONAL EDUCATION (IE)?

The philosophy of IE has been applied in more than a hundred schools throughout the world, predominantly in the United States of America (USA) and Canada. IE is a theory of practice that emanates from the self-concept theory and the perceptual tradition. It is deliberately directed towards broader goals than learners and their performance alone. The aim of IE is to create an entire school environment that intentionally invites success for everyone in the school. 

RESEARCH DESIGN
A qualitative research design was deemed most suitable for this study since it allowed the researcher to gain insight into the perceptions of principals and teachers on the factors influencing the realisation of leadership in their schools.  Field research was undertaken within the habitat of the subjects. 
Sample
Purposeful as well as convenient sampling was used for the study.  Initial contact was made with a prominent invitational education consultant in the United States of America (USA) who identified five inviting schools in New Mexico.  She also advised contacting a board member of the International Alliance of Invitational Education who then assisted in identifying inviting schools in Scott County and a school in Fayette County in Kentucky, USA.  Permission to visit inviting schools in the district — two elementary schools  and a ninth grade school— was obtained from the Superintendent of Scott County, Kentucky.  He identified and informed the schools about the proposed visit. The International Alliance board member identified an inviting high school in Fayette County, Kentucky  which the researcher contacted electronically. The invitational education consultant provided the contact numbers of the five inviting schools in New Mexico: two early childhood centres and three elementary schools.   Thereafter, e-mail contact with the principals of these five schools was used to make the necessary arrangements for the study.

The schools typify many of the problem areas in American schools.  All the schools have a diverse population of students in terms of income, culture and national heritage.  Family income ranges from substandard poverty level to high income.

Guba’s (Poggenpoel, 1998:351) model for trustworthiness was used to ensure the validity and reliability of the research. The four strategies to ensure trustworthiness are credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

Data collection
Data were mainly collected through semistructured interviews with principals and beginner and experienced teachers. These comprised the following participants: 

•	All principals of the nine schools. 
•	Teachers at each school. The principals were asked to identify experienced and beginner teachers. Depending on the school’s programme, interviews were conducted with individual teachers or in focus groups. 

A general question opened the interview: Which factors influence the effective sustainment of Invitational Education?  Depending on the response to the question, interviewees were prompted to elaborate on the role of leadership and staff in their school.

The interviews were conducted at the identified schools during April 2004. Permission was granted by all participants to take down field notes and to record the interviews on a tape recorder. These notes were expanded by the researcher immediately after completing each interview as a verifying measure. All the interviews were transcribed on a computer.

Data analysis
Data (the transcribed interviews and field notes) obtained from the different interviews were coded using bracketing (placing preconceived ideas within brackets) when reading through the transcripts and field notes for the first time (Poggenpoel, 1998:337).  Significant comments were grouped into categories and units of meaning were placed within these major categories (Poggenpoel, Nolte, Dörfling, Greeff, Gross, Muller, Nel, & Roos 1994:132).  A number of subcategories within each major category were then identified.  A literature control was conducted to identify the contribution of this study to that of previous research conducted on school leadership and IE.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This article focuses on the particular role played by the principal and staff in sustaining IE in inviting schools. The major categories which emerged from the data were: the principal as the ‘face of IE’; the vision of the principal; school culture; ‘feeding the teachers’; teachers’ attitudes and commitment; working together; and revisiting IE. This focus was triggered by a statement of the IE consultant when she referred to Barth (Purkey & Strahan 1995:4): “The quality of adult relationships within a school has more to do with the quality and character of the school and the accomplishments of students than any other factor”.

The principal as the ‘face of IE’ 
The successful implementation of IE depends on how it is modelled by the principal. The particular role of the principal was referred to by various participants. The IE consultant clarified it as follows:
It is more likely to be successful if the principal is highly into it.  If the principal is not in favour of it, it is not going to happen at a large scale.  The principal can start educating people in IE and can plant seeds to understand IE... The principal has to continue to model IE...  You can start with places.  I started in my office, a tiny little square room. I put bright colours on.  I made it my office.  People walked by and saw it was different and inviting.  I went out of the office and started to change other areas.  It was a visual thing that they could see. 

A principal elaborated: 
	As a leader we take teachers to areas they wouldn’t normally go. So I am setting an example, I try to demonstrate how to treat people... I treat teachers in front of students the way I want them to treat students...  I try to be a positive role model, treat teachers with respect, brag on them a lot.

Other principals supported this view with the following comments: “If the leader doesn’t do it [IE], there is no way others would do it.  What is emphasised gets done.”; “The leader is the first and foremost ... she should walk her talk and get [her] hands dirty. They will then respect you more”; and “If he [the principal] is not first ... [in] modelling IE and demonstrating it, it won’t happen. He has to model it.  He has to be creative in modelling it” .

The idea of the principal modelling IE is also supported by both beginner and experienced teachers, for example: “It [IE] starts from the top.  If they want people to do good things, they should do it.”;  and “He [The principal] is the face of the school.  He should be the face of IE”.

In order to model IE,  the principal must ‘buy into’ IE.  Participants explained this as follows: “To me the principal is everything, if he doesn’t believe in it, nothing happens. “; “Leadership plays the biggest part, because if the leader doesn’t think IE is important, others won’t. You need someone to spearhead the initiative”; “The principal is really the pin, he should be fully convinced of IE” ; “If the principal does not back it, IE does not have an opportunity to bloom.”; and “The principal has to buy into IE and has to support it ... if the principal doesn’t back it, it won’t work”. The notion of support by the principal when implementing IE was also confirmed by other participants: “Feedback and support are very important.  It has to come from the principal.”.

Quality leadership is required for effective IE in schools. Yu, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000:371) recommend that principals provide an appropriate model for staff to follow which is consistent with the values of leaders. Literature confirms the importance of the way in which principals support teachers through the process of change (Sachs, 1999:26; Robinson & Carrington, 2002:239; Brandt, 2003:10; Gerber, 1998:170; Richardson, 2003:401; Professional staff development: A key to school improvement, 1999:388;  Somers & Sikorova, 2002:103; Anonymous, 2001/2002:18; Washington, 1993:252). The creation of a vision by principals serves to support staff to understand that they are making a meaningful contribution.

The vision of the principal
Principals striving towards IE in their schools require a clear vision. The importance of a vision was supported by many participants. Two principals explained this respectively as follows: 
You have to start with the people.  If you don’t have a common vision, you won’t accomplish your goal ... I always say we don’t have a good school because of me, but the principal has to be the key leader in sharing the vision and continuing motivating people towards the vision. The principal has to articulate the vision. I have to walk the talk. I am the head leader of the school. Once you get the people on board, it’s shared leadership. 

For invitational learning it takes inviting teachers to see the rainbow, to have a dream.  You have to see the outcome.  You need to have a vision. You have to believe in it.

The IE consultant commented on her previous experience as a principal after redecorating her office to make it more welcoming: 
IE starts with a person with a vision and a passion for creating an inviting school ... You can enrol others in the vision ... The next step was to enrol others in my vision ... Don’t let nay sayers get you down. There will be teachers who are apprehensive towards IE.
 
Charisma is the characteristic that describes leaders who are able to exert a profound influence on followers, the school’s performance and climate by the force of their personality, abilities, personal charm, magnetism, inspiration and emotion. Charismatic leadership also provides a vision and a sense of mission which is critical for the implementation of change initiatives.  Furthermore, a skill of an effective leader is to inspire people to work more effectively and to obtain ownership. By implication ownership refers to team members experiencing the meaningfulness of their task. According to Kirkman and Rosen (1999:59), meaningfulness, which parallels meaningfulness at the individual level, refers to the team experiencing their task as important, valuable and worthwhile.

The inspirational nature of vision may encourage emotional arousal processes. Moreover, the common mission holds the empowered, autonomous professionals together. Daugherty (1996:83) believes that for institutions to function effectively, stakeholders should be directed towards a shared vision, goal or objective that is done through both short-term and long-term strategic planning. What is required, however, is an organisational structure and culture that encourage ownership of the work by the ‘worker’. The shared values of staff members affect their actions which subsequently have an influence on the school culture.

School culture
Without effective leadership, efforts to change the school culture will most likely fail. Principals provide an orderly and nurturing environment that supports teachers and stimulate their efforts. One principal explained it as follows: 
We [principals] set the tone, set the way, the direction ... I set the example and tone of the school. I’m leading them [the teachers] to places where they don’t want to go. Growth is painful. We work together ... I am instrumental in setting the climate/tone and example for teachers. Morale is a big, big component in the school. A little negative talk, negative action of teachers can really pull the school down. I try to be a positive role model.

The principal’s key role in setting the tone is also confirmed by the following statements: “The principal sets the whole tune for the building”; “The principal sets the tone and culture in the building by what he or she believes.”; “You need a battery to start it. You also need people who don’t mind change. If the principal is not willing, if he doesn’t have friendly people in his office, it is difficult. You may take the unfriendly face from the office to the classroom“; and “I know the principal influences the atmosphere in the school.  I take a lot of stress on myself to maintain a positive atmosphere”.

Leadership is overwhelmingly important in establishing a positive environment.  Patterson and Patterson (2004:75) concur that it is the principal’s cardinal influence that determines how the dynamics of the school culture develops. Brandt (2003:15) believes that the school culture should be humane, that is, psychologically comfortable with warm human relationships, and professionally supportive where people have the resources they need and the opportunities to collaborate and learn from others. In addition, a positive, humane school culture is a requisite for all areas of endeavour in schools.

Principals earn their position as cultural leaders through credibility, expertise and relationships. When educators admire, trust and respect principals for their personal and professional values, these principals receive credibility.  The school culture is influenced through expertise when educators acknowledge principals’ exceptional teaching skills.  Principals’ ability to influence the school culture through relationships is seen when they ‘connect’ with educators as colleagues, communicate openly, show trust and confidence in them and share knowledge with them.

To  ’reculture’ schools means to develop collaborative work cultures that focus in a sustained way on the continuous development of teachers in relation to creating and assessing learning conditions for all learners. When principals choose to behave in an inviting manner, the school climate is enhanced and total school settings are positively transformed. Principals can also work towards fostering a climate where teachers feel safe and able to work cooperatively and professionally. 

Clearly when principals support change and engender a culture that promotes sharing and mutual support and create structures that encourage collaborative endeavour, learning at the organisational level is much augmented. Principals can therefore establish the desired school culture by “feeding the teachers, because they feed the students”.

‘Feeding the teachers’
Throughout the interviews the interaction between the principal and the staff as well as the importance of teachers in the implementation of IE was stressed. One principal asserted: 
The principal, you know, sits in a little office, but they [the teachers] make it happen. In Invitational learning it’s about the kids. If we can invite them to learn, my goodness. Here’s the deal: not only to attend conferences, but the principal has to see that it’s carried out. You have to keep on reminding them.

Other participants also confirmed the importance of ‘feeding the teachers’: “Teachers are the key people and I feed the teachers and teachers feed the children. They have the most impact. They are behind closed doors. I have to feed the information... Teachers can nurture the parent community and bring them to school” ; “Teachers are the wheels of the programme. It happens in the classrooms. They are the action parts. Their role is very important”; “It would be impossible to implement IE without the teachers. Teachers have to buy into it”; “Teachers are the frontline”; “The most important thing is teachers. They are not an add-on.  They deliver instruction to students”.

Current trends in the principal’s leadership show a shift from bureaucratic managerial styles to different leadership styles that reflect human dignity and promote collaboration in decision-making. Furthermore, principals can help teachers realise that they are making a difference with learners and foster feelings of efficacy. There is also a positive relationship between a principal’s actions and teachers’ affective outcomes such as feelings of trust, respect, job satisfaction, empowerment, higher levels of commitment to organisational goals and perceived principal effectiveness . Mahoney (1997:96) confirms this by stating: ”Successful leaders are able to commit people to action”. Furthermore, IE can lead to a pattern of beliefs and expectations among all roleplayers in the schools that guide their attitude and behaviour.

Teachers’ attitudes and commitment
A few participants explained the importance of the attitude and commitment of members of staff in the effective implementation of IE. 
The attitude of teachers is the biggest thing. If we complain about pay, yes, we don’t have enough funds, but we can discuss it without being negative.  Commitment is a huge thing. Attitude and commitment go hand in hand. If you have a bad attitude, you hare not committed.

The attitude of teachers has to be positive.  We were trained to follow guidelines of IE.  It was discussed outright, it looked at our attitude ... A willingness to participate is important, a willingness to learn about IE.  Just being positive is a major step.  There are many things to be negative about .

Teachers’ attitude and commitment are at the centre of change. According to certain studies, there is a strong relationship between how teachers view themselves and how they view others, that is, teachers with a low self-esteem hold a correspondingly low opinion of learners.  Furthermore, Ho-Ming and Ping-Yan (1999:38) believe that programmes directed towards change will be futile without teachers’ wholehearted commitment, even if these programmes are well designed and implemented. This implies that principals in schools must be competent to influence teachers’ attitudes and commitment to change.

Creating a caring and inviting community requires the cultivation of shared values and the development of an appreciation for the value of working together and caring about each other.

Working together
Collaboration among staff in the school is one of the assumptions of IE. A few of the participants expressed their perceptions of staff working together.
If you have a faculty that don’t work together, it’s a hard obstacle to overcome. You can’t start IE without team-building. Teachers have to know others on a personal level. 

If you don’t have teachers who practice what they preach, there will be no faculty involvement. You need enough faculty members to buy into it [IE] to work. It can spread from there.

Teachers play a major role ...  If we become a team, a family, working towards the process, we will make it.  Also remember that one apple spoils the barrel ...  You need to include and invite everyone. People make the building, not the building the people.  

If you are not part of it, have ownership, it [IE] won’t work.  Everybody should be involved.

Since teaching can be a ‘lonely profession’, there should be opportunities for teachers to share their achievements and problems in employing new strategies for change to happen. Sharing stimulates teachers’ reflections and broadens their perspective. W Edwards Deming, the American ‘guru’ of Japanese management principles, also advocates a team concept that supports the cooperation of staff in order to improve processes and products continuously. This collaboration contributes to the development of a positive school culture that is committed to change and the creation of better learning opportunities for all learners. It is well documented that teams can improve quality, efficiency and job satisfaction. The focus is on individuals and teams accepting joint responsibility for the quality of work. They utilise strengths and complement each other’s knowledge and skills, which encourage more effective teaching and enhance ownership of their own professional learning. One of the most important things that professionals do in successful schools is to learn from one another. 

Collaboration as an end in itself should not be the goal, but rather whether staff have added knowledge and contributed towards other people’s development.  Staff in collaborative schools view each other as  a resource with the collective value of providing high quality education for all learners.

In conclusion, the most powerful predictor of learner performance is the quality of relationships among staff. When everybody participates in school transformation, everyone experiences a genuine sense of ownership of the process. According to Purkey and Strahan (1995:4), ‘membership’ is a hallmark of an inviting school. 

Apart from the aspects described above, the success of any innovation depends on maintenance of the desired culture in the school. Principals should provide support to educators to enable them to continue developing new habits during the implementation dip that reduces effectiveness before the new procedures become routine. 

Revisiting IE
Receiving the IE award does not mean that the school has ‘arrived’. It is even more important after the honour has been bestowed on the school to demonstrate what it is to be inviting. It implies that all roleplayers should still be actively involved in sustaining the spirit. A few participants mentioned the necessity of maintaining the IE spirit in the school.

Teachers set the example for new teachers. We are lacking it and have to get back to IE to continue with IE. IE has to be revisited ... We have to see if we still have the same vision and mission. Initially we were excited, but we are now several years from that. We don’t have the same enthusiasm as before.  The spirit may die. If you don’t have continuous development, it may die. You have to understand the concept, but you need to have a strong tradition to keep us inviting. Continuous encouragement is needed ... It’s  human nature to slack off on things. We know what it is to be inviting, but it is not the same as in the beginning. In the beginning we had more discussion, surveys ... to follow through is very important. Don’t stop with surveys. Our school was more successful when we were more inviting’. 

We need continuous teacher orientation. I miss the hows and whys ... I read it [IE] in the handbook, so I remember it being mentioned, but since then the only time I have heard it was when we sat down as a team. How can I take this even further? It would benefit us all if we go back and revisit IE.
According to the literature, staff development is most effective when it is a continuous process that includes appropriate training, individual follow-up through supportive observation and feedback, staff dialogues, mentoring and peer coaching (Moore, 2000:14; Richardson, 2003:401; Rhodes & Houghton-Hill, 2000:431; Anonymous, 2001/2002:18; Brandt, 2003:10).  Sustaining and supporting the changes, improvements and lessons learnt is crucial for its effectiveness.

CONCLUSION							

Within the framework of IE, school transformation is an ongoing process. Its success depends on various factors. Internal factors, leadership and staff collaboration positively contributed to the inviting atmosphere in schools. The leadership role describes the principal as a visionary, leading the school community in its development to employ more effective teaching and curricular strategies and supporting teachers’ efforts to become inviting. A vision to become inviting is critical for its success. Principals also play a key role in creating and sustaining a positive school climate in which teaching and learning can take place. Although it is accepted that leadership is the key to any school reform, little change is possible without the active role of teachers. Their attitude and commitment towards IE cannot be underestimated. They need to take ownership of it. One of the most important things that professionals do in inviting schools is to work together and learn from one another.

In conclusion, a missing component of inviting school development programmes is a commitment to a strategic approach to develop staff systematically so that they not only understand and change their approach, but are also able to take responsibility for shared vision, leadership and management of the school community. Leadership and teamwork among teaching staff, essential components of IE, also may have the capacity to bring about immense change in South African schools. The experience of IE by the inviting schools in the USA described in this study could be a promising option for South African schools, which are seriously need to provide quality education.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous 2002/2002.  New staff development standards issued. Reading Today, December 2001/January 2003. New staff development standards issued. 19(3):17-18.
Asbill K & Gonzalez ML 2000.  Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal practices.  Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1):14-27.
Beavis AK 1995.  An attempt to implement TQM: A principal reflects.  The Practising Administrator, 17(3):4-6,22-23.
Bernauer J 2002.  Five keys to unlock continuous improvement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, Winter, 38(2):89-92.
Birman BF, Desimone L, Porter AC & Garet MS 2000. Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, May, Vol. 57, No. 8: 28-33.
Bjork C 2000. Responsibility for improving The quality of teaching in Japanese schools: The role of the principal in professional development efforts. Education and Society , 18(3):21-43.
Blackmore J 2000.  Developing conditions to teacher professional renewal.  Teacher Learning Network, Summer, 7(1):3-5.
Blase J & Blase J 1997. The micro-political orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on teachers’ sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2):138-164.
Brandt R 2003.  Is this school a learning organization? 10 ways to tell. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1):10-17.
Brinson KH 1996.  Invitational education as a logical, ethical and democratic means to reform.  Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, Winter, 4(1): 81-94.
Browell S 2000.  Staff development and professional education: A cooperative model.  Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(2):57-65.
Campbell B. 1997.  Professional development: Beyond the on-day serving. The Practising Administrator, 19(2):26-28, 35.
Coppersmith L & Grubbs AL 1998.  Team-building: The whole may be less than the sum of its parts.  Human Resources Professional, June, 11(3):10-14.
Daugherty A 1996. Total Quality Education. Contemporary Education, Winter, 67(2):83-87.
Dixon NM 1998. The responsibilities of members in an organization that is learning.  The Learning Organization, 5(4):161-167.
Drejer A 2000.  Organisational learning and competence development. The Learning Organisation, 7(4):206-220.
Drejer ED 2002.  Leading the Toa: The energizing power of respect. The Learning Organisation, 9(5):206-213. 
Dubrin AJ & Ireland RD  1993.  Management and organization.  2nd edition.  Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western: College Division.
Edwards JL, Green KE & Lyons CA 2002.  Personal empowerment, efficacy, and environmental characteristics. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1):67-86.
Ericson DP & Marlow SE 1996.  Democracy, power, and authority: The development of a conceptual basis for shared professionalism between teachers and administrators.  Journal of School Leadership, March, 6:120-142.
Frazier A 1997.  A roadmap for quality transformation in education.  Boca Raton, Fla: St Lucie Press.
Friedland S 1999. Violence reduction? Start with school culture.  School Administrator, June, 56(6):14-16.
Gerber R 1998. How do workers learn in their work? The Learning Organisation, 5(4):168-175.
Greenwood MS & Gaunt HJ 1994.  Total quality management for schools.  London: Cassell.
Guaspari J 1999.  A dirty little secret.  Across the board, March, 36(3):60-64.
Heaton WE 1998.  The secret strategy.  Production and inventory management. First Quarter, 39(10):78-81.
Ho-Ming NG & Ping-Yan C. 1999.  School-based teacher development in Guangzhou, China.  International Studies in Educational Administration, 27(2): 32-42.
IAIE State/County Coordinators 2004. The Invitational Forum, April, 25(1):32-34.
King M B & Newman F M 2001. Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2):86-94. 
Kirkman BL & Rosen B 1999.  Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1):58-74.
Kitchens A 1998. Good teachers - Who are they and what can they do? Journal of Developmental Education, Fall, 22(1):38.
Kok JC & Van der Merwe MP. 2002.  Invitational Education: Adding uniqunes - An empirical study.  Paper presented at the 18th International Conference of the IAIE, Kennesaw State College, Atlanta, United States of America. 10, 12 October 2002.
Lam YLJ & Pang SKN 2003. The relative effects of environmental, internal and contextual factors on organisational learning: the case of Hong Kong schools under reforms.  The Learning Organisation, 10(2)83-97.
Mahoney JA 1998. The inviting school superintendent. Journal of Inviting Theory and Practice, 5(2):97-105.
Mester C, Visser D, Roodt G  & Kellerman R 2002.  Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes and behaviour.  Industrial Psychology,  29(2): 72-82.
Moore K B 2000. Successful and effective professional development. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, November/December, 15(3):14-16.
Novak JM & Purkey WW 2001.  Invitational education. Bloomington, Ind: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.
Patterson J & Patterson J 2004. Sharing the lead. Educational Leadership, April, 61(7)l:74-77.
Pehkonen E & Törner G 1999.  Teachers’ professional development: What are the key change factors for mathematics teachers? European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(2-3):259-275.
Pfeffer J & Veiga JF 1999. Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, May, 13(2):37-48.
Poggenpoel M 1998.  Data analysis in qualitative research,  in Research at grass roots. A primer for the caring professions, edited by AS de Vos. Pretoria: JL van Schaik Publishers. p334-353.
Poggenpoel M, Nolte A, Dörfling C, Greeff M, Gross E, Muller M, Nel E & Roos S 
1994.  Community views on informal housing environment: implication for health promotion. South African Journal of Sociology, 25(4):131-136.
Purkey WW & Strahan D 1995.  School transformation through invitational education. Researching in the Schools, 2(2):1-6.
Professional staff development: A key to school improvement 1999. NCA-Quarterly, Winter, 73(3)-387-391.
Richardson V 2003.  The dilemmas of professional development. Hi Delta Kaplan, January, 84(5):401-406.
Rhodes C & Houghton-Hill S 2000. The linkage of continuing professional development and the classroom experience of pupils: Barriers perceived by senior managers in some secondary schools. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(3):423-435.
Robinson G 1998.  Empowerment, communication and change.  British Journal of Administrative Management, July/August, 4:10-14.
Robinson R & Carrington S. 2002. Professional development for inclusive schooling. International Journal of Educational Management. 16(5):239-247.
Russell P 2001. Professional development: Making it effective. Teacher Learning Network, Spring, 8(3):3-7.
Sachs A 1999.  Solid foundation.  NSC standards are the rock of Maryland schools to build on. Journal of Staff Development, Winter, 20(1):23,24, 26-28.
Sallis E 1997.  Total quality management in education.  2nd edition.  London: Kogan Page.
Schurink EM. 1998  Deciding to use a qualitative research approach, in A primer for the caring professions, edited by AS de Vos. Pretoria: JL van Schaik Publishers. p 239-251.
Shelton M & Jones M 1996.  Staff development that works! A tale of four T’s. NASSP Bulletin, October, 80(582):99-105.
Shipengrover JA & Conway JA 1996.  Expecting excellence.  Creating order out of chaos in a school district.  Thousand Oaks, Cali: Kirwan Press, Inc.
Smith R & Coldron J 1999. Conditions for learning as a teacher. Journal of In-Service Education, 25(2):245-260.
Smith PAC 1999. The learning organization then years on: a case study. The Learning Organisation, 6(5):217-224. 
Somers J & Sikorova E 2002.  The effectiveness of on in-service education on teachers course for influencing teachers’ practice. Journal of In-Service Education, 28(1):95-114. 
Sparks D 2003a. Transformational learning. Journal of Staff Development, Winter, 24(1):29.
Sparks D 2003b. Change agent. Journal of Staff Development, Winter, 24(1):55-59.
Swift JA, Ross JE & Omachonu VM. 1998.  Principles of total quality. 2nd edition. Boca Raton, Fla: St Lucie Press.
The Concept of Invitational Education.1998. Journal of Developmental Education, Fall, 22(1):38,39.
Trent MY 1997. Enhancement of the school climate by reducing teacher burnout: Using an invitational approach.  Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 4(2):103-114.
Washington KR 1993.  Teacher initiated staff development: What do principals and teachers think? School Organization, 13(3): 251–253.
Wheatley MEG 1999.  Don’t get out of the way. Executive Excellence, May, 16(4):6.
Yu H, Leithwood, K & Jantzi D. 2000. The effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong.  Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4):368-389.