Answer

Good leaders inspire achievement and action. For a leader to be termed good, there are various practices that they should engage in and educational leaders are not an exception (National Policy Board For Educational Administration (NPBEA), 2011). Diane Ravitch is an exemplary leader known for transformational policies on the education system in the United States. Under two US presidents, Diane held two top positions in the education system that made her party develop and implement critical educational assessments and policy. This task seeks to evaluate various practices that make Diane Ravitch such an outstanding educational leader.

            One of Diane’s practices is that she is a doer (Gehrke & Claes, 2014). Diane Ravitch who is a historian of education and New York University’s research professor founded the President of Network for Public Education. She also started the dianeravitch.net blog which has millions of followers. This has helped her communicate solid thoughts on the best way to transform education. Diane is never afraid of doing what she feels is right. When she was the counselor to the secretary of education and an assistant in the docket, Diane was in charge of improvement and educational research in the education department of the United States. During this period, she spearheaded the federal initiative to promote the national standards in academics and create a voluntary state.

            Another practice upheld by this leader is team spirit. As a member of the national assessment governing board between 1997 and 2004, Diane played key role information and implementation of various policies. Among others, she fought for school choice and accountability policy and assisted in the development and implementation of the No Child Left Behind policy.

            Diane also values the review and evaluation of what she does (Gehrke & Claes, 2014). In the same spirit, Diane supported the implementation of various policies, after understanding their impact on the US education sector, she has now come out in opposition. The opposition is based on the realization that the two policies cannot lead to the necessary drastic changes needed for educational reform in the US.

2.2. Leadership Styles

            Martin Luther King was a charismatic leader. Charismatic leadership is based on persuasiveness and charm and charismatic leaders are driven by their commitment to a cause and their convictions that it is right (Gehrke & Claes, 2014). Martin Luther King JR was charismatic in that he employed an unwavering commitment, engaging personality and powerful oratory skills to pass the agenda of positive change in the lives of the people he led.

            President Donald Trump, on the other hand, is an authoritarian leader. Authoritarian leadership is a style where whatever the leader directs must be followed to the latter (Alizor, 2013). Such is seen when President Trump desires implementation of a policy of plan. For instance, when he stated that there would be a wall built between the US and Mexico, consultations were not made and his directions had to be followed.

            Barrack Obama can be categorized under inspirational leaders. Despite a difficult childhood, he fought his way in society until he became the first black president of the United States. This way, many can look up to him and be motivated by his ambition to pursue their life’s goals (Alizor, 2013).

            Pope Francis, who is the Catholic Church’s Pontiff, is an example of a transformational leader. His deeds such as the washing of a Muslim woman’s feet and riding in a Ford Focus are a display of reform process as they contradict the stringent Catholic stance his predecessors held. He also appointed some cardinals to assist him in making reform progress without interfering with the doctrines upheld by the church to accommodate people from other walks of life.

            Bill Clinton, the founder of the Clinton Foundation, is a situational leader. Since he left office, the former president of the United States has fought endlessly to deal with various situations such as diseases like tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS. He also runs the Clinton Global Initiative that strives to deal with emissions from greenhouse gases.

2.5. Deming and Total Quality Management (TQM)

            Edward Deming was a total quality management thinker who contributed immensely to organizational management. His work constitutes of techniques is but more of management philosophy. His philosophy focuses on continuous improvement and quality with justifiably wide influence. In his approach to the systemic approach, Demings developed 14 points of transformational management and quality movement. According to Sallis (2014), these points revolve around the constant product and service quality improvement, employee participation, cost minimization, and improvement of production and waste reduction. Also, continuous training of staff, breaking departmental barriers, accounting for methods and quality instead of numbers, eliminating workmanship barriers and working together for the management and subordinates to transform the organization should be upheld.

            Demings 14 points coupled with the seven diseases of management and Deming Wheel are instrumental in ensuring quality management focuses on the overall organization and not just the products and services. Once the management is aware of how to improve quality, it works towards dealing with lack of constant planning, emphasizing on short term benefits, high liability and medical costs, job hopping and manager mobility, poor annual reviews and performance evaluation and not managing the organization based on true data (Sallis, 2014). Commitment to quality and effective management according to Deming should work to combat these diseases and communication of quality to members of staff was emphasized as a foundation to total quality management belief. On the other hand, The Deming Wheel is also known as PDCA cycle is a fundamental concept as the repetition of the “plan”, “do”, “check”, and “act” cycle fuels continuous improvement of organizational activities (Sallis, 2014).

3.2. Corporate VS Educational Vision Statements

            Sweetgreen’s vision statement is “to inspire healthier communities by connecting people to real food”. Warby Parker’s vision statement is “to offer designer eyewear at a revolutionary price while leading the way for socially conscious businesses”. On the other hand, “Carnegie Mellon University will have a transformative impact on society through continual innovation in education, research, creativity, and entrepreneurship”. “Harvard College will set the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education in the twenty-first century. We are committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.”

            Queen, Peel, and Shipman (2013) states that both corporate and educational vision statements seek to communicate the organization’s desire. Whether it is to give people real food or offer them quality education, both sectors look into the future impact of their undertakings to society. Besides, both vision statements give the method through which they seek to achieve the futuristic desire. This implies that since vision statements communicate what the organization wants to achieve in the future, it must state how it intends to reach that long term goal.

            According to Queen, Peel, and Shipman (2013), the major difference between the two sets of vision statements is that corporate vision statements focus on selling their product or service while the educational statements strive to transform the society through quality education. Besides, while company products benefit only the individual, education is expected to change the lives of students and the society at large. Cost is a point of reference to corporate vision statements as they desire to sell their products and services at the fairest prices while in mission statements, the cost does not count since education is a basic need.

6.1 Role of Federal and National Governments in Education

            The federal government plays a crucial role in the allocation of funds to district schools operating within its guidelines. Approximately, 3% of federal government budget allocation is directed towards education while the rest is shared among Every Student Succeeds Act beneficiary district schools (Manna & McGuinn, 2013). The federal government also is responsible for the evaluation of district schools. The Nation’s Report Card also known as the National Assessment of Education Progress is administered by the Federal government to review the performance of each school on the basis of a uniform scorecard. This is instrumental in comparing how different schools rank and which schools are achieving the set educational targets.

            Publishing of teaching materials and recommended strategies is also a responsibility of the federal government through its agencies like the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (Manna & McGuinn, 2013). As deemed fit, local and states government can adopt this recommendation even if there is no funding received for their implementation.

            The state governments on the other hand harbor the primary responsibility of public schools operation and maintenance. They also play a fundamental role in regulating, selecting and implementing the instructional materials, teaching methods, and curriculum used in schools within their jurisdiction (Manna & McGuinn, 2013). As a result, the quality of educational policies and standards vary across states and hence the offered educational quality. Therefore, state legislators have to come up with an appropriate schooling system and incorporate it within the constitution. Besides, the minimum graduation requirements should also be set by state legislators as prescribed by the set regulations and rules of the courses. The implication is that for one to be recognized, they must have the minimum qualifications recommended by their state of interest (Manna & McGuinn, 2013).

6.2. Florida State School Funding

            School funding combines local, state, and federal financing. The local funding is usually derived from taxes on the property. Funding from the federal government is given to distinct groups such as students from low income earning households. State funding, on the other hand, is distributed according to a defined formula. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) is used to determine how funding is distributed in various schools within the state.

            The states constitution in article IX section 1 stipulates that for Florida, education is a fundamental need and adequate provision should be made to ensure children within its borders receive this valuable possession. Additionally, the FEFP policy strives to ensure equal funding is guaranteed for every student despite their varying economic factors and geographic differences. According to Florida Schools Board Association (2017), the funding follows the formula given below:

(Full-Time equivalent X Cost Factors X Base Student Allocation X District Cost Differential) + Declining Enrollment + Sparsity Supplement + safe schools +ESE Guarantee + Supplemental Instruction + Reading Instruction+DJJ Supplement + Virtual Education + Digital Classrooms + Instructional Materials + Student Transportation + Classroom Supplies + Federal Connected Student Supplement + Class Size Reduction + School Recognition + Required Local Effort + Discretionary Local Effort = Total FEFP Funding

            The state funding formula is unfair to Volusia Country Schools as money is taken from some districts and offered to others. Secondly, some districts within Florida offer limited resources which means that they are poor funders. However, they receive better treatment than those largely responsible for the state’s funding.  Therefore, there is a need to review the system and ensure the equitable distribution of educational financing to individuals across the state.

References

Alizor, J. O. (2013). Leadership: Understanding Theory, Style, and Practice: Things You Need

to Know about Leading an Organization. Nashville, TN: WestBow Press.

Florida Schools Board Association. (2017). Understanding the FEFP. Retrieved from rhmelton

website: https://fsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-17-FEFP-101.pdf

Gehrke, B., & Claes, M. (2014). Global Leadership Practices: A Cross-Cultural Management

Perspective. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan International Higher Education.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. (2016). Build a Better Vision Statement: Extending Research with Practical

Advice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Manna, P., & McGuinn, P. (2013). Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century:

Overcoming the Structural Barriers to School Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

National Policy Board For Educational Administration (NPBEA). (2011). ELCC Standards:

District and Building Level. Retrieved from NCATE website: http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-standards-and-report-forms/elcc

Queen, J. A., Peel, H., & Shipman, N. (2013). Transforming School Leadership with ISLLC

and ELCC. London, England: Routledge.