Persistence, prudence, and a few possibilities Hoy, W. K. (2020, April 22). Persistence, prudence, and a few possibilities. Acquired Wisdom Series, S. Nieto, F. Erickson & P. Winne (Eds.). Education Review, 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v27.2939 Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities Wayne K. Hoy I have been a professor and teacher for more than 50 years, and I welcome the opportunity to reflect on my life and career. This is not the first time I have grappled with my contributions and shortcomings (e.g. Hoy, 2001, 2012), so it should not be surprising that some earlier ruminations are also reflected in this essay. A Bit of History February 7, 1938, I was born into a family of educators in the small, rural town of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. My father and mother had just completed their studies at the local State Teachers College. My dad was a high school teacher at Lock Haven, and my mother, at this point, was a housewife and my mom, both of which were full-time jobs. Before I was five, I had a younger brother, Tom, and we had moved to Latrobe, PA, where my father continued his career as an educator and coach (track and basketball); in fact, as fate would have it, he taught Arnold Palmer mathematics, not golf. WWII intervened. My father enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and we moved to Ambridge, PA, a blue-collar suburb near Pittsburgh, to live with my grandparents. My mother taught elementary school for the duration of the conflict. After the war, dad got a job as a high school English teacher in Ambridge. He spent weekends and summers earning a doctorate in education at the University of Pittsburgh. I was an average student at best in elementary school. Attending a school where my mother taught was no fun. I took a lot of teasing from classmates and some of my mother’s colleagues were petty people who picked on me relentlessly; I disliked most of them intensely. School was one of my least favorite places. I left all that behind and got a fresh start in junior high school. We moved when my father became an assistant education professor at a University of Pittsburgh campus in Johnstown. Cochran Junior High School was an educational turning point for me. I was an anonymous student in large city school. No one knew me; I had a clean slate. The teachers were generally good and a few excelled. I was one of the smallest students in the school. I will never forget a comment from Mr. Hanson, my math teacher, “Diamonds don’t come in barrels.” I discovered I was quite good at math and reasonably proficient all around. From then on, school was enjoyable. By the second six- week marking period, I was on the honor Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 2 roll for the first time, an accomplishment I achieved frequently thereafter. What a difference the right teachers can make! Junior high school gave me the kind of healthy self-image I needed but had lacked. Our last family move was to return full circle to Lock Haven. My father was hired as curriculum director of the district, then assistant superintendent, and finally, as superintendent of the district, which by then had become a relatively large jointure school district composed of more than a half dozen adjacent communities. I was in the academic track in high school with another 60 highly motivated students, almost all of whom went on to higher educational institutions. My high school years were some of the best days of my life. I enjoyed school life – the debate team, class vice president, the yearbook staff, the wrestling team, good friends, girls, as well as virtually all my classes. Mathematics continued to be my favorite subject, but I did have an English teacher, Ms. Dickey, who made writing and grammar intellectually stimulating. Outside school activities, I played some baseball, first in the Little League and then Junior League (fun but no career possibilities). As an adolescent I always had a job: paper boy, clerk at the local men’s store, clerk at JC Penney, and employee of the A&P grocery store. Education, hard work, and frugality were family values that grew from my parents’ experiences in the Great Depression. For better or worse, they influenced me also. My younger brother, Tom, not surprisingly had a similar career route – teacher and then principal. Turning Point 1 College selection was a major career decision in my life. I had no idea what I wanted to do career wise, a factor that made selection difficult and ambiguous. I had an opportunity to go the U.S. Air Force Academy; I was assured a political appointment was mine for the asking, but I had deep reservations about making the military a career. I often wonder where that route would have taken me. In the end, without a clear vision of the future, I postponed the decision and attended the local college – Lock Haven State College, my parents’ alma mater. I did well, enjoyed school, and continued until graduation, which meant that I was destined to become a teacher and follow in the teaching tradition of my family. I sometimes regret not going away to college for a more typical undergraduate experience but, then again, things worked out reasonably well. For me, college was constrained; I lived at home, worked 32 hours each week at the A&P store, studied, and attended classes. There was not time for much else. College was an instrumental path to a good job as a high school mathematics teacher at Cheltenham High School in suburban Philadelphia. In the fall of 1959, I loaded my personal belongings into my car and headed east to a rented room in Wyncote, PA, to begin an independent life as an adult. I learned my room with its magnificent roll- top desk was occupied at an earlier time by the poet, Ezra Pound. Unfortunately, I received no special inspiration from Mr. Pound’s residual presence. My time at Cheltenham High School was valuable; I matured, explored suburban and urban life, developed my teaching skills, became more independent, and married, all in five years. I taught the full range of traditional mathematics courses – algebra, plane and solid geometry, trigonometry, and AP calculus, as well as a series of modern math courses triggered by Sputnik. Early on, I found time to coach wrestling and the JV baseball team. Reggie Jackson was a talented sophomore who, 30 years later, would be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame. I occasionally brag that I taught Reggie everything I knew about baseball in 10 Education, hard work and frugality were family values that grew from my parents experiences in the Great Depression and for better or worse they influenced me also. Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 3 minutes. In truth, I am not sure he even spent 10 minutes on my team before being drafted by the varsity. Cheltenham High School was strikingly academic and intellectual. Most of the teachers were scholars, some with a Ph.D. Academics, not sports or extracurricular activities, ruled the school. The dean’s list, merit scholarships, and Ivy-league colleges were prized goals. For a young guy from rural central Pennsylvania, the school was an eye opener and a challenge, but I thrived and enjoyed the students as well as the teaching. My AP calculus class was a daily gathering of some of the brightest students I have ever taught; they were merit scholars and math savants – all were fascinating, creative, enthusiastic, and smart. Perhaps the most famous was a young Israeli named Yoni Netanyahu (Benjamin’s older brother) who returned to Israel and commanded the Raid on Entebbe, in which he tragically lost his life. He was the only student I ever taught who wanted to buy his calculus text because he loved the content. Summers were a good time to relax and refuel, but I quickly became restless. I enrolled in a summer program at Penn State. Perhaps the principalship was in my future. As the third summer ended, Professor Don Willower pulled me into to his office and offered me a scholarship to study educational administration full-time. I was surprised and intrigued, but I demurred because I had a commitment to return to Cheltenham. I did, however, express interest. Turning Point 2 I returned to Cheltenham for what turned out to be my fifth and final year. I was happy with teaching, but it did not seem to be enough. I began to consider seriously two other possibilities: (1) graduate study in mathematics at the University of Illinois, where I had received encouragement and the possibility of an NDEA scholarship or (2) graduate study and a principal’s certificate from Pennsylvania State University. By early October I had an offer in hand from Penn State that included a guaranteed assistantship. Both prospects were appealing. I selected Penn State and administration because I felt I was more likely to excel. Teaching gifted math students convinced me that some people were truly hard-wired to do math. I found math interesting and enjoyable, but I had to work at it. I concluded that I could be a proficient mathematician, but never a great one. With a career of educational administration firmly in mind, my wife and I moved to graduate housing at Penn State. She was fortunate to get a job as a high school Spanish teacher at Bellfonte a few miles away and I had my graduate assistantship in educational administration. My goals were clear: first complete my Ed.D. and then find a good job as a principal on route to a career as a superintendent, following in my father’s footsteps. But things are seldom straightforward. Serendipity struck when Professor Donald Willower became my doctoral advisor and mentor. He was a leader in the so-called theory movement in educational administration with its focus on the behavioral sciences, research, conceptual analysis, and hypothesis formulation and testing. I had taken most of the traditional certification courses in my master’s program, which were practical and applied. Now my studies took a dramatic turn to sociology, political science, psychology, theory, and research. I found myself doing independent research papers and co- teaching an organizational theory course with my advisor. I became part of a research team to explore the school as a social system and to identify salient features of school culture. Without realizing it, I was being groomed for the professorship. The change My AP calculus class was a daily gathering of some of the brightest students I have ever taught. Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 4 was exciting, enlightening, and challenging. The focus of my studies pivoted from the practical to the theoretical. Once again, I was confronted by divergent paths – a career as a public-school administrator or a college professor. I had outstanding role models for both and interviewed for both, principal and professor. Ultimately, my decision was based on the challenge of a new intellectual world of ideas, the scholarly stimulation of theory and research, and the independence of work and lifestyle the professorship afforded me. We were off to Oklahoma State University. Context for Success Oklahoma State University, Rutgers University, and The Ohio State University provided me with rich contexts for success. Although different in many ways, each enabled continued growth and development. Early Years: Oklahoma State Oklahoma State University was a helpful place for me to begin; it was good fit. I had great colleagues, a light teaching load, and the freedom to choose my own research agenda. For the first several years I taught only one course a semester; my other duties were to help register students for off- campus courses a couple times a year, and occasionally participate in a practical field study in school districts. An additional perk was an almost unlimited budget to attend conferences of my choice. The Dean and Director of Continuing Education took good care of me, and I embraced their support. I was involved in NCPEA (National Conference of Educational Administration), a national meeting of individual professors from across the county as well as UCEA (University Council for Educational Administration), a select group of universities that offered quality programs in educational administration. In these organizations I got to know not only my colleagues across the country but also scholars in related fields, those I had read but never met, such as Herbert Simon, James Coleman, Karl Weick, and Henry Mintzberg, as well as luminaries and scholars in my own field like Daniel Griffiths, Roald Campbell, and Ed Bridges. My daily routine for the first two years was to be at the office by 8:30, have coffee or tea with colleagues at the Union from 9:00-9:30, and then proceed to the library for a morning of reading, studying, and notetaking; the afternoons were the same. The pattern gave me a chance to fill in gaps and expand my knowledge base. I took meticulous notes and developed a series of class lectures that made teaching enjoyable for me and my students. I learned to wade through difficult topics and to write each day regardless of limited motivation to do so on some days. I had some exceptional doctoral students at Oklahoma State. Cecil Miskel was my doctoral advisee during my last year, and we built a working relationship that lasted decades. In sum, my years at Oklahoma State were a time for learning how to be a professor; I had good models, a supportive environment, and freedom to do my work. I don’t believe I could have found Beginning the professorship at Oklahoma State Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 5 a better workplace as a beginning professor. Nevertheless, I missed the east coast and when Rutgers University came calling, I listened and moved – it felt like going home. Middle Years: Rutgers University – State University of New Jersey At Rutgers I was confronted with a much more impersonal, formal, and instrumental culture. Young professors were worried about getting promoted and gaining tenure. In my haste and naiveté, I moved to Rutgers as an associate professor without tenure. Almost immediately, I felt the press for tenure. Most of my colleagues, however, were friendly and accommodating. I had made good use of my time at Oklahoma State. Don Willower, my mentor at Penn State, had instilled in me the value of writing and publishing, and I had followed that lead by getting a research and publishing agenda activated quickly. By the time I arrived at Rutgers, my scholarly and research productivity were strong, and tenure was not even a small bump in the road. In the end, the Rutgers move was a sound career step. I quickly was promoted to Professor and then Professor II (Distinguished). I also served as Chair of the Department of Educational Administration and Higher Education and later, the Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Education. I always, however, remained a professor first and foremost, never yielding to the temptation to temporarily stop teaching and research even at the urging and prodding of the Provost to focus full time on administration. Everything was not smooth sailing at Rutgers. As the Dean in charge of Academic Affairs for the Graduate School of Education, I had more than my fair share of conflict with both professors and the Provost’s office. I consistently supported my professorial colleagues sometimes to the chagrin of central administration, a situation that was acerbated by Rutgers’ strong professorial union. I learned that I could win a few battles here and there, but the Provost always won the war. That was never so clear as when the faculty search committee for a new Dean for the Graduate School of Education strongly recommended me for the position, but the Provost’s Office had other ideas. The University passed over me for the Deanship and I returned to my full-time role of distinguished professor. Conflict in my personal life led to a divorce, but fortunately, my son Wayne II, a computer science professional, and my daughter Kelly, an elementary teacher, were adults with their own careers. After my return to the professorship, I spent another seven or eight years at Rutgers, but there was always a latent tension in the air. Twenty-six years after beginning, I left Rutgers with a new wife, Anita Woolfolk Hoy, and started a new life at The Ohio State University as the Novice Fawcett Chair in Educational Administration. The primary goal of programs both at Oklahoma State and Rutgers was to prepare practitioners – school principals and superintendents; in fact, the final degree in both places was the Ed.D. This is not to say that students finishing the program all The Rutgers years Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 6 became school administrators; that was not the case. Many went into the professorship. For instance, at Oklahoma State, Jim Appleberry became a professor at Oklahoma State, and Cecil Miskel became a professor at Kansas and eventually Dean of Education, first at Utah and then Michigan. At Rutgers, John Tarter (St. Johns and Alabama), Patrick Forsyth (Oklahoma and Penn State), Michael DiPaola (Chancellor Professor, William and Mary), and Jim Henderson (Professor and Dean at Duquesne) became professors of education. But Ohio State was different – fewer students, more full-time students, and no Ed.D., only a Ph.D. program. Not surprisingly, most of the Ph.D. students had higher education aspirations. Later Years: The Ohio State University I was attracted to Ohio State for two reasons: its longstanding stellar reputation in educational administration and the availability of an endowed chair. Novice G. Fawcett was a President of Ohio State for 16 years. During his tenure, his friends and colleagues wanted to honor him by building a house on campus. He, however, convinced them a more prudent investment (one for which I am thankful) was an endowed chair; hence, the Novice G. Fawcett Chair in Educational Administration was born, and Roald Campbell moved from the University of Chicago to become the first recipient. In 1994, I had an airport interview for the Fawcett Chair, which initially struck me as a strange and awkward. After a two-hour airport session, I boarded a plane in Columbus and returned to New Jersey. Six weeks passed and not a word. Then out of the blue, I got a call from Dean Nancy Zimpher. She said, “The job is yours if you want it. Come back take another look if you like.” I was nonplused, but quickly recovered and retorted, “It’s been a while since we last talked. Actually, I need two professorships; I am about to marry Anita Woolfolk.” The rest is history; Ohio State acted positively, and Anita and I spent the next 18 years in Columbus, OH. I was surprised by how well the Fawcett Endowment was funded. Suddenly, I had an abundance of resources, including graduate assistants each year, released time for research, and a substantial additional stipend at my disposal. I decided to invest the stipend in students and in the process created the new role of Fawcett Scholar. I recruited exceptional Ph.D. students (16 in all) who wanted to study educational leadership with me. Their tasks were to engage in scholarship on school organization and administrative behavior. The Fawcett Endowment funded their doctoral education, including travel to conferences to present their work, computers, research expenses, and an assistantship. The work for their assistantship was 20 hours to be spent on their scholarship. Over All the Years: Collaborative Research A hallmark of my professoriate has been close and shared work with doctoral students. Likely emanating from my participation in the Pennsylvania State University Pupil Control Studies (Hoy, 2001; Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967), I came to the early conclusion that collaborative research was a valuable learning opportunity for all involved. I built a model in which my dual role was providing conceptual capital and intellectual ideas for students as well as modelling the research process from inception to dissemination. The final product was not simply a dissertation but also a piece of research worthy of publication. We typically formed teams to work on research projects – first, elaborating the theoretical underpinnings of a major study; then using that broad framework, students would read deeply and decide what piece of the puzzle A hallmark of my professoriate has been close and shared work with doctoral students. Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 7 they would like to address, what measures and procedures were needed, and how their piece fit into the whole; and finally, we produced a strategy for collecting large samples of data with each student responsible for part of data collection. At both Rutgers and Ohio State, we were able to build extensive interlocking networks with schools to collect large amounts of school and teacher data. Professors of educational administration have an advantage; many of our students are active school leaders, both principals and superintendents, which makes gaining access to schools for research much more manageable despite the fact that it is increasingly more difficult these days. School administration students (often administrators in other districts) collected a portion of the data, for example, each would collect the data from 20 schools. A team of four students produced a sample of 80 schools and a comprehensive data base, which would serve as a basis of many related studies, building upon both theory and earlier empirical results (e.g., Hoy & Sabo, 1998). Although the plan sounds good in the abstract, it was quite another matter to implement it in practice. Yet we persisted and usually succeeded. In brief, my initial tasks in collaborative work with students were to provide support, stimulation, conceptual capital, and intellectual ideas such as pupil control, trust, teacher efficacy, collective efficacy, school climate and culture, enabling school structures, mindfulness, instructional leadership, and alienation. These were topics studied in teams of two to four graduate students. Student commitment and standards had to be high; we were all dependent on each other. Coming together as a team made projects possible that were simply too large and complex for any one student. This is a model that worked well over the years as evidenced the publications it produced. For those graduate students who became professors, the collaboration continued over the years. For example, consider the books and articles with James Appleberry, Karen Beard, Michael DiPaola, Patrick Forsyth, Roger Goddard, James Henderson, Geoffrey Isherwood, Dan Kunz, Leigh McGuigan, Cecil Miskel, Dennis Sabo, James Sinden, Page Smith, John Tarter, Megan Tschannen-Moran, and Jason Wu. Contributions My contributions to the field range from the development and testing of theoretical frameworks such as pupil control and organizational climate as well as the invention and elaboration of a new construct called academic optimism, to more applied enterprises such as a classic textbook in educational administration and a popular web page that serves both researchers and practitioners. Pupil Control Studies As noted earlier, my initial research was on pupil control, which I started as a graduate student as part of the Penn State Studies on Pupil Control (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967). We used a humanistic – custodial framework to conceptualize and measure educators’ orientations toward pupil control. With my colleagues at Penn State, we developed a 20-item Likert-type scale (PCI Form) to measure the custodial (or humanistic) pupil control ideology of educators. The scale subsequently has been used in hundreds, possibly thousands, of studies and dissertations to assess pupil control ideology. The PCI framework and its related theory guided my own research and that of many of my students for more than a decade. In my first year at Oklahoma, I planned and executed a three- year longitudinal study of the socialization effects of school culture on the pupil control ideology of beginning teachers (Hoy, 1967, 1968, 1969). The results Coming together as a team made projects possible that were simply too large and complex for any one student. Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 8 demonstrated the power of school culture to influence new teachers; they consistently became more custodial and less humanistic, a conclusion confirmed again 20 years later in another longitudinal study (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). The initial PCI research focused on individual educators (teachers, principal, counselors), but later work extended the framework and measure to examine the collective pupil control ideology of the school, that is, the unit of analysis shifted from the individual to the organization (Hoy, 2001). At Rutgers, we used the PCI as both an individual and collective measure of control perspectives; in fact, most of my early doctoral students selected the PCI framework to do their dissertations. The findings were overwhelmingly supportive and positive. For example, pupil control orientation was related to socioemotional outcomes such as student self-actualization, student alienation, and openness of the school climate. The more custodial the PCI of the school, the lower the degree of self- actualization of students (Diebert & Hoy, 1977), the greater the degree of student alienation (Hoy, 1972; Rafalides & Hoy, 1971), the more closed the climate of the school (Hartley & Hoy, 1972), and the less positive teacher attitudes about open education (Hoy & Jalovick, 1981). On the other hand, custodial pupil control was unrelated to student achievement in every study in which SES was included. Actually, SES overwhelmed all our variables in predicting school achievement. The PCI inquiries are now in their fifth decade and the concept and measure remain useful to researchers as they analyze and assess schools. The Book After nearly a decade as a professor of educational administration and proponent of the utility of theory in the preparation of principals and superintendents, and at the urging of colleagues and students at Rutgers, a book on theory and research seemed appropriate. I met Cecil Miskel at the annual meeting of the National Conference on Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) in Vermont and proposed that we coauthor a text that synthesized the theory and research in the field. The timing was propitious – we were in the midst of a theory revolution in educational administration. Our programs of scholarship were complementary, and Random House was interested in our project. We were guided by Kurt Lewin’s claim, “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” Things looked bright. Publication was another matter. The editor at Random House changed and so, too, did the publisher’s enthusiasm; the new editor was not excited by our project, yet we persisted. The editor wanted change after change; we persisted. The manuscript was sent to a new set of reviewers and the process dragged on more than a year; we persisted. After more than two years from the submission of our first draft, the text was published. The old adage, “You cannot judge a book by its cover,” was fitting. The plain, gray, inexpensive cover was one of the most unappealing designs we had ever seen, yet the text was a hit, quickly becoming a best seller in the field. Building upon classic organizational and human relations literatures, we drew Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 9 from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, and political science as well as the organizational scholarship in business, military, industry, and education. The text was new and different. It was anchored in three assumptions: there is a substantive body of knowledge available from the behavioral sciences that is neglected by education professors and administrators; an open social-systems model is a useful overarching framework to organize and link theory to practice; and administrative practice becomes more reflective and effective when guided by sound theory and research. The text has evolved through nine editions, the first published in 1978, and the latest in 2013, with each edition tightening the relationship between theory and practice. Over the past four decades, Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice was likely one of “the most widely read educational administration books in the world” (Institute for Educational Administration, Victoria, Australia). The book has stood the test of time in reasonable fashion. Theory and research were related to practice with problems from actual cases studies. The application of theory is difficult; it requires knowledge, skill, and practice. What typically is missing is what William James called an “intermediary inventive mind,” which must make the application of theory. Theory, if it is to be successful in practice, must applied by administrators using their minds’ originality. Hence, professors of administration must not only teach theories of administration but also cultivate inventive minds. Successful administrators are much more inclined to be guided by reflection and theories, as imperfect as they are, than by impulse and the biases of dubious beliefs. Organizational Climate Early in my career I was intrigued with the notion that schools, like people, had their own personalities (Halpin, 1966). It doesn’t take much time nor many visits to schools to convince even the most casual observer that there are striking differences in the feel of schools. Those differences are often called the climate of the school, that is, climate is to organization as personality is to individual. School openness. Our initial studies of school climate were done using an openness framework and measure developed by Andrew Halpin (1966). An open climate had supportive leadership grounded in openness, consideration, and task-oriented behavior, and a faculty characterized by engagement, cooperation, and high morale based on both task accomplishment and social needs satisfaction. Not surprisingly, school openness was related to teacher humanism and openness as well as positive socioemotional characteristics of students. Although I felt good about connecting school climate with positive student social- emotional outcomes, my students and administrators wanted more. They kept asking, “Was school climate related to academic achievement?” Coleman and his colleagues found in their landmark study of schools that, “only a small part of (student achievement) is the result of school factors, in contrast to family background differences between communities” (Coleman et al., 1966, p. 297). For years, we did analyses of the openness of school climate variables, controlling for the effects of socioeconomic status (SES), to determine if they were related to student achievement; they were not. Socioeconomic status consistently accounted for most of the variance in school achievement. One of the first researchers to challenge Coleman’s conclusion that schools had only a negligible effect on student achievement was Ron Edmonds (1979). He used a series The application of theory is difficult; it requires knowledge, skill, and practice. What is typically missing is what William James called an “intermediary inventive mind…” Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 10 of case studies to identify a list of school properties of effective schools: strong principal leadership, high expectation for students, a focus on basic skills, an orderly environment, and frequent teacher evaluation. He concluded that good schools were a product of good principals. Unfortunately, a few case studies do not provide the strong evidence of large-scale quantitative analyses of schools, but Edmonds’ claims stimulated further work on school properties and achievement. School health. My students and I turned to a broader perspective on school climate, the health of interpersonal relationships in a school, which included faculty relations with faculty as well as students. Based on the theoretical foundations of Matthew Miles (1969) and Talcott Parsons et al. (1953), we developed an organizational climate perspective using a health metaphor (Hoy & Feldman, 1987; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). The framework consisted of defining and measuring critical school variables at three different levels in the organization. At the institutional level, institutional integrity reflected the school’s ability to cope with its environment in positive ways. The managerial level was framed in terms of the principal’s leadership: initiating structure to solve problems, consideration to assist and support teachers, influence to help and protect teachers, and resource support to secure the materials needed for teachers to succeed. Finally, at the technical level, health was tapped in terms of the esprit de corps and the academic emphasis of the faculty. These elements came together both conceptually and factor analytically to define a healthy organizational climate (Hoy et.al., 1991). Climate health, however, was not much more successful predicting academic achievement than was climate openness. One climate variable alone, academic emphasis, suggested a relationship with student achievement regardless of SES; it was a harbinger of things to come. The bulk of our work on school climate is summarized in two books (Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy et al., 1998) and an article (Hoy, 2012). Collective Trust Notwithstanding the general popularity of trust as a topic of commentary and admonition, there was little educational research on trust, and even less on the collective trust before the 1980s. Our initial foray into trust began with a set of school investigations on organizational trust (Hoy & Kupersmith, 1983, 1984) as we defined and then measured faculty trust in colleagues, in the principal, and in the organization. We discovered that trust in the principal and in the organization were essentially the same thing. Not surprisingly, trust in colleagues and in principals were strongly related to leadership and school climate variables; however, these trust variables were not related to student achievement when SES was used as a control. Socioeconomic status overwhelmed the trust variables in our regression equations and reinforced Coleman’s conclusion that SES was the dominant force in the academic success of students. The results were discouraging; the problem remained: What school characteristics could explain student achievement in spite of the general negative influence of disadvantaged family background? Our study of collective trust remained relatively dormant until the late 1990s, when we moved to Ohio State, and my first Fawcett Scholar, Megan Tschannen-Moran, became intrigued with trust. She was persistent in her interest and effort, and we started afresh with a comprehensive review of the trust literature in general (Tschannen- Moran & Hoy, 1998), which led to refinement, expansion, and new set of measures for faculty trust in colleagues, in students, in the principal, and in parents Not surprisingly, trust in colleagues and in principals were strongly related to leadership… Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 11 (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). We finally were able to consistently demonstrate that faculty trust in parents and students was related to student achievement, regardless of SES (Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001). I am not sure why we omitted trust in students and parents in the Rutgers studies, but it was a glaring oversight. Clearly, faculty trust in students and in parents are salient aspects of trust in schools, which make a positive difference in student achievement regardless of SES. The last phase of our studies of trust occurred at Oklahoma State where my former student, Patrick Forsyth, and his student, Curt Adams, extended the study of collective trust to parents and students, that is, the extent to which each trust the teachers and principal. The results complement the findings of the Rutgers and Ohio State Studies of Trust. Few would now argue that trust is not an important facet of organizational life. It is a focal point of successful cultures of school. Trust is the linchpin of sound interpersonal relations, leadership, authenticity, teamwork, parent- teacher collaboration, and not surprisingly, academic achievement and effective schools. The results of over 25 years of our theory and research can be found in the book, Collective Trust: Why Schools Can’t Improve Without It (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011). The significance of trust is also supported in an independent study of the Chicago Public Schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2002); their results were remarkably similar and consistent with ours. Collective Efficacy My initial introduction to teacher self- efficacy came in my work with Anita Woolfolk at Rutgers. We studied how prospective teachers’ feelings of efficacy were related to motivating and influencing students and how these beliefs changed with teaching experience (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Woolfolk, Rosoff & Hoy, 1990). Next, we examined how school climate and leadership were related to teacher self-efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Our work on efficacy continued and developed at Ohio State as Megan Tschannen-Moran joined the project. We did a comprehensive review of the literature and developed a model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Megan finished her Ph.D. with me at Ohio State and then stayed on as a lecturer in the educational administration program and continued her study of both organizational trust and teacher self-efficacy. Albert Bandura’s seminal and comprehensive book, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control awakened in me the potential and power of efficacy. Bandura made it clear that efficacy could be used to describe collectives as well as individuals, e.g. efficacious schools. His theory and formulation led me to believe that collective school efficacy might just be one of the elusive school properties that made a difference in student achievement regardless of SES; in fact, he made just such a claim (Bandura, 1997). At the time, Fawcett Scholar Roger Goddard was having difficulty finding his dissertation topic. A little nudge and he was on board the efficacy project with Anita, Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 12 Megan, and me, viewing efficacy as a collective property of schools rather than an individual one. Collective teacher efficacy is the faculty perceptions as a whole that it will have a positive effect on students. With Roger taking the lead, we developed a framework and measure of collective school efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000, 2004) and then tested and supported the theory that collective efficacy promoted high student achievement regardless of SES. The test and confirmation were just the beginning of a series of studies, both at Ohio State and across the country, which consistently demonstrated the collective efficacy-student achievement relation at both elementary and high schools (Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004; for a summary, see Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Moreover, in a more recent comprehensive survey of factors that influence student achievement, John Hattie (2016) ranked collective teacher efficacy as a top factor (based on effect size) influencing student achievement. With my son and daughter Academic Optimism: A New Construct Ohio State was on a quarter system when my wife Anita and I accepted positions. A full load was three quarters, and we negotiated the winter as our off-duty quarter. Each year we spent from the middle of December to the end of March in Naples, Florida. This was our time for relaxing and writing and we did plenty of both. Part of our daily ritual was a walk to the beach about 4:30, a glass of wine, and a stroll on the beach at sunset. Our conversations were varied, sometimes personal and other times professional. By early the 2000s, and after several decades of research, my students and I had empirically demonstrated that three school properties were consistently related to student achievement, controlling for SES – academic emphasis, faculty trust in students and parents, and collective efficacy. John Tarter, professor at St. Johns, worked closely with me over the years on all three of these variables; in fact, he often spent a week or two in Florida at what he called “writing camp,” where we summarized and synthesized our research results and got them ready for publication. One might expect that we were explaining larger and larger amounts of achievement variance by using all three of these variables. Unfortunately, that was not the case because academic emphasis, trust, and efficacy were highly intercorrelated, even though the items of each measure were quite different. The problem was theoretical as well as statistical. At this stage of the research, Anita joined in the deliberations as we grappled with the question of the fundamental abstraction that was common to these three school properties. Over a few months we talked on and off about the meaning of the extremely high correlations among the academic emphasis, trust, and efficacy constructs as we walked the beach. We were struck by the positive and optimistic nature of trust and efficacy. Trust necessitates a leap of faith in others and efficacy is rooted in a positive outlook as well. Seligman’s (1991, 1998) work on learned optimism and the general notions of hope and optimism were crucial in our conversations. There seemed little doubt of the optimistic view of both trust and efficacy. Academic emphasis gave collective optimism in the school a focus on academics; hence, we chose the term academic optimism to reflect beliefs about agency in schools. Optimism is the overarching idea that united efficacy, trust, and academic emphasis because each of the three terms contains a sense of the possible. Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 13 Collective school efficacy is the belief the faculty can make a difference in student learning. Faculty trust in students and parents is the belief that teachers, parents, and students can cooperate to improve learning. Academic emphasis is the enacted behavior prompted by these beliefs; the focus is on student success. Thus, academic optimism of a school describes a faculty that believes that it can make a difference, that students can learn, and that high academic performance can be achieved (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). The underlying theory of academic optimism and its connection with student achievement have been consistently demonstrated in studies of elementary, middle, and secondary schools in the United States and other countries (DiPaola & Wagner, 2011; Hoy, 2012; Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk, 2006a, 2006b; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Mitchel, Mendiola, Schumacker, & Lowery, 2016; Smith & Hoy, 2007; Wu, Hoy & Tarter, 2012; Wu, 2013). Moreover, academic optimism has been elaborated in a more comprehensive model that explains the organizational dynamics of student achievement (Hoy, 2012; Hoy & Miskel, 2013). The construct can be measured at the individual as well as organizational level (Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010; Fahy, Wu, & Hoy, 2010; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurtz, 2008). The value of academic optimism in schools is seen in its embrace of potential, with its strength and persistence, rather than a focus on pathology, with its weakness and helplessness. The odyssey to discover the characteristics of schools that overcome SES to make a difference in school achievement for all students and then to develop a theory of academic optimism was a long journey of 40 years (Hoy, 2012); it was a difficult and discontinuous trek with failures and successes, and it involved the cooperation of many people. Persistence and theoretical guidance were salient factors in success. The three published sources that best explain the theory and research on academic optimism as it relates to student achievement are found in two articles and a book (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011, especially Chapter 6; Hoy, 2012; Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006a). Web-Page Toolbox A major problem for many young researchers is finding the right theory, concepts, and measures to move forward on their inquiries, especially if the study is quantitative. Most of my own work has been quantitative and I have had to create dozens of reliable measures to complete my studies; in fact, the preliminary work developing acceptable conceptual measures often was as difficult as the research itself. The research process, however, has become more manageable with the advent of digital access to resources of all kinds. Libraries of books and articles are now at one’s fingertips with a computer and the Internet. During the last two decades I have made it a priority to summarize our work and make it easily accessible to all by developing a comprehensive web page (www.waynekhoy.com), which contains research papers, books, theoretical frameworks, power points, administrative principles, readings, quotes, research scales, courses, and conceptual capital for administrators. The site is a toolbox for both researchers and practitioners and it is open to all at no cost. For practitioners, there are strategies and tactics for action (e.g., strategy of strategic leniency and strategic preparation for action: the premortem), principles and rules of behavior (e.g., rules for resilience, rules for positive choice, and rules for organizational justice) as well as normative theories for administrators, such as a simplified model of shared decision making to guide teacher participation, and a theory of concurrent leadership that helps practitioners navigate Persistence and theoretical guidance were salient factors in success. http://www.waynekhoy.com/ Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 14 the organizational dilemmas administrators inevitably confront. For students and researchers, the site provides downloadable research books on such topics as open and healthy schools (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp (1991) and on collective trust (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011), as well as a myriad of theoretical and conceptual capital. There is also a catalogue of viable research instruments with each described conceptually and operationally, along with information on its reliability, validity, and a copy of the scale, which can be downloaded, copied, and used in research. This set of about two dozen research instruments is one of the most popular destinations for scholars. It is useful to students, academics, and administrators from across the country and especially helpful to those in foreign countries with limited resources. During the past decade, the site averaged about 20,000 hits per year with most from the US, but a significant number also from China, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Taiwan, Pakistan, and Great Britain. Bits of Wisdom: A Few Possibilities I am always a little reluctant to give advice, but this essay has caused me to reflect on over 50 years as a teacher and professor, so perhaps a few bits of wisdom are in order. Collaborate with your students. One of the most fulfilling aspects of the professorship for me has been working with students, especially doctoral students. This collaboration was good for them as well as for me. Our partnership was mostly focused on research projects. A successful way to facilitate such cooperation is to have an on- going research agenda, which is open, intriguing, and invites participation. A professor’s program of research can provide a structure for successful integration of graduate students into the world of research. If we expect students to do first-rate research, we need to model such behavior. As one can see from my earlier comments as well as my publications, my contributions inevitably revolved around cooperative research with students on such topics as collective trust, collective efficacy, and academic optimism. These areas of research usually have a life of six to 10 years, with students doing related pieces. The publication of their part of the research keeps energy and interest flowing. Our success was dependent upon working well with each other to answer and elaborate theoretically fascinating questions. This model of research requires heuristic theoretical perspectives, a cadre of good students, good interpersonal relations among participants, reliable cooperation, and intellectual curiosity. Of course, such an approach also necessitates appropriate supervision, high standards, and commitment to scholarship. Good students gravitate to such cooperative ventures whereas poor and disinterested students avoid them. Self-selection is a powerful force for success. There is no one right way to do things. I hasten to add that there is no one way to do research, mentor students, interact with students, or to teach. In most endeavors there are multiple paths to success. Finding the best fit is never easy. Cooperative research with students is one model; one that worked well for me, but certainly not the only successful approach. I offer it simply as a possibility for others because I know first-hand that it can work. My own publications demonstrate commitment to collaboration; of the dozen books I have written, all except one, Quantitative Research in Education, were coauthored with former students and colleagues, and even with this exception, in its 2nd edition revision, I asked a colleague to join me (Hoy & Adams, 2016). Theory may be undervalued. In the early 1960s, we had a theory revolution in educational administration. Until then, the There is no one right way to do research, mentor students, interact with students or to teach. Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 15 focus was entirely on practice, and the content of the field was composed primarily of the admonitions and storytelling of practitioners. The so-called theory movement ushered in dramatic change that moved the field toward explanation, research, and data. But that advance in educational administration was short-lived. By the 1980s, the field started to shift and trend back toward an emphasis on experience and practice at the expense of theory and research. In education, and perhaps in all applied fields, there is a tendency for a forced choice between theory and practice. Of course, that not need be the case. The key is to find the correct balance between the two perspectives, but that is easier said than done. Professors, it would seem, choose sides and debate a false choice. Let’s select balance rather than sides. Education is a field that is buffeted by fads and fashions. One function of theory is to limit these persistent, abrupt, and arbitrary changes. As I have argued throughout this essay, a research agenda based on theory provides continuity, stability, and is a long-term guide to cumulative research and knowledge development. For example, consider Albert Bandura’s work on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), which is built on social cognitive theory and human agency. His is a theoretical perspective that has produced 1000s of studies in dozens of fields that advance our understanding of the exercise of control. If we are to move forward in education, we need theoretical knowledge to guide not only our research but also our practice, and we need leaders with “inventive intermediary minds” to apply theory to practice. To undervalue theory is to undermine practice. Persistence wins the day. In the abstract most agree with this statement, but not enough that individuals consistently act on it. Recently, the popular press embraced the “never give up” slogan. Persistence is a little different – it means preparing and pushing through difficult challenges. William James urges us to do something each day for no other reason than we would not rather do it, and I would add, especially if it is difficult. For example, as a young professor I knew the importance of publication, but I had little experience in writing manuscripts, other than my dissertation. For me, such writing was difficult. My approach was to write one good page each and every day. I would start each day, by editing the previous day’s page, and adding the next page. That habit inevitably led to a reasonable paper each month. It took a while, but within a year I was turning out two or three publishable papers a year, some research and others more theoretical. Habit and persistence won the day for me in publication and a host of other difficult tasks, and I recommend it for others. Regardless of the task, never underestimate persistence and practice. Take advantage of the university milieu. Reflecting on my life as a professor, I am struck by how much I missed. The university is a wonderful place to live and work; clearly, I am biased in this regard. One of my basic shortcomings was a narrow focus on teaching and research. Yes, one can be too myopic, and I was. I did not take advantage of the cultural and intellectual diversity on campus. World-class speakers and scholars are routinely available for talks and seminars, and I was almost always too busy to go. That was a mistake. Of course, there were exceptions. For example, toward the end of our time at Ohio State, Anita and I established what we called “date night.” Every Tuesday for a semester, we went out for an early dinner somewhere close to campus. After dinner, we headed toward a class on structural equation modeling that we were auditing. We always had a delightful evening, and in the process, we became reasonably proficient at SEM. But even here, I did not Regardless of the task, never underestimate persistence and practice. Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 16 stray too far from my own work and research. What I did miss were talks by prominent visiting philosophers, politicians, feminists, and scholars from the hard sciences. I didn’t have the time. Time is a funny thing: you can make more of it, if you work at it. Develop a professional family. One of the most fulfilling activities of professorial life for me has been the development of a professional family. A side benefit of working closely with students on collaborative projects is that they become friends, and of course, the activity stimulates their productivity. As I reflect on my network of close friends, I realize that most often they are linked to my professional life. We meet at conferences such as AERA each year, sometimes to work on projects and other times to get caught up professionally. The interactions form a support group; we care about each other. Sometimes we get together for “writing camp,” other times just for fun, and occasionally for vacations. The family expands over time. In my case, when I married Anita, mine grew significantly. A professional family can be a rich source of intellectual stimulation as well as personal fulfillment; it has been for me. There is Life After Retirement Most of my colleagues and friends warned that I would fail retirement because my work had always dominated my life. They were wrong. I entered retirement with a prudent plan: I was determined to travel widely, to write a novel, to read more broadly, and to learn how to paint with acrylics. After six years, Anita and I have traveled the world and feel the need to slow down. The novel is more difficult than I anticipated; I have the characters developed, but not the plot. I have found time to read in areas I neglected as a student and professor. For example, biographies of James, Emerson, Jobs, Da Vinci, Einstein, Kissinger and sci fi writings of Max Tegmark and David Deutsch as well as the novels of John Sandford and Lee Child have kept me both learning and entertained. Along the way, I discovered I have some talent to paint – not enough for a career, but more than enough for enjoyment. My art is of the abstract and expressionistic variety. Our latest book on instructional leadership (Woolfolk & Hoy, 2020) offers a sample of my abstract art, which is featured on the cover. Retirement is splendid and life is good. I have been blessed to share it with my colleague, best friend, and soulmate – Anita. References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. H. Freeman. Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teacher and Teaching Education, 26, 1136-1144. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in school: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity. Government Printing Office. DiPaola, M. F., & Wagner, C. A. (2011). Academic optimism of high school teachers: Its relationship to organizational citizenship behaviors and student achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 893-926. Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 17 Diebert, J. P., & Hoy, W. K. (1977). Custodial high schools and the self-actualization of students. Educational Research Quarterly, 2, 24-31. Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work, more can. Social Policy, 9, 28-32. Fahy, P. F., Wu, H. C., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). Individual academic optimism of teachers: A new concept and its measure. In W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.). Analyzing school contexts: Influences of principals and teachers in the service of students (pp. 209-227). Information Age Publishing. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. Teachers College Press. Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L. & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18, 403-425. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-508. Goddard, R. G., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy: Theoretical development, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13. Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3-17. Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and practice in administration. MacMillan. Hattie, J. (2016, July). Mindframes and maximizers. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Visible Learning Conference, Washington, D.C. Hartley, M. C., & Hoy, W. K. (1972). Openness of school climate and the alienation of high school students. California Journal of Educational Research, 23, 17-24. Hoy, W. K. (1967). Organization socialization: The student teacher and pupil control ideology. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 153-155. Hoy, W. K. (1968). The influence of experience on the beginning teacher. School Review, 76, 312- 323. Hoy, W. K. (1969). Pupil control ideology and organization socialization: A further examination of the influence of experience on the beginning teacher. School Review, 77, 257-265. Hoy, W. K. (1972). Dimensions of student alienation and characteristics of public high schools. Interchange, 3, 38-51. Hoy, W. K. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Corwin Press. Hoy, W. K. (2001). The pupil control studies: A historical, theoretical, and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 421-441. Hoy, W. K. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 76-97. Hoy, W. K., & Adams, C. M. (2016). Quantitative research in education: A primer (2nd ed.). Sage. Hoy, W. K., & Feldman, J. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 30-38. Hoy, W. K., & Jalovick, J. M. (1981). Open education and the pupil control ideology of teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 40, 45-49. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9th ed.). McGraw Hill. Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Corwin Press. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/health schools: Measuring school climate. Sage. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006a). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425-446. Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 18 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006b) Academic optimism of schools: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes. Information Age Publishing. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184-208. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.). Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 181-207). Information Age Publishing. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Organizational socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 335-372. McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203- 229. Miles, M. (1969). Planned change and organizational health; Figure and form. In F. D. Carver & T. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human development (pp. 375-371). McGraw Hill. Mitchell, R. M., Mendiola, B. J., Schumacker, R., & Lowery, X. (2016). Creating a school context of success: The role of enabling school structure & academic optimism in an urban elementary and middle school setting. Journal of Educational Administration, 54, 626-642. Parsons. T., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. A. (1953). Working papers in a theory of action. Free Press. Rafalides, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1971). Student sense of alienation and pupil control orientation of high schools. High School Journal, 55, 101-111. Seligman, M. (1998). Positive social science. APA Monitor, 29(2), 5. Seligman, M. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3-12). Oxford University Press. Seligman, M. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life (2nd ed.). Pocket Books. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 153-176. Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 556-568. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 68, 547-593. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248. Willower, D. J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology. Monograph, No. 24. Pennsylvania State University Press. Woolfolk, A. E. (1985). Research perspectives on classroom communication. Theory into Practice, 24, 3-7. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91. Woolfolk, A. E. & Hoy, W. K. (2020). Instructional leadership: A research-based guide to learning in schools (5th ed.). Pearson. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148. Woolfolk Hoy, A. (1996). Teaching educational psychology: Texts in context. Educational Psychologist, 31, 41-49. Woolfolk Hoy, A. W., Hoy, W. K., & Kurtz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: the development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821-832. Wu, J. H., Hoy, W. K., &Tarter, C. J. (2013). Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a culture of academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 176-193. Persistence, Prudence, and a Few Possibilities 19 Wu, J. H. (2013). Academic optimism and collective responsibility: An organization model of the dynamics of the dynamics of school achievement. Asian Pacific Educational Review, 14, 419- 433. About Acquired Wisdom This collection began with an invitation to one of the editors, Sigmund Tobias, from Norman Shapiro a former colleague at the City College of New York (CCNY). Shapiro invited retired CCNY faculty members to prepare manuscripts describing what they learned during their College careers that could be of value to new appointees and former colleagues. It seemed to us that a project describing the experiences of internationally known and distinguished researchers in Educational Psychology and Educational Research would be of benefit to many colleagues, especially younger ones entering those disciplines. We decided to include senior scholars in the fields of adult learning and training because , although often neglected by educational researchers, their work is quite relevant to our fields and graduate students could find productive and gainful positions in that area. Junior faculty and grad students in Educational Psychology, Educational Research, and related disciplines, could learn much from the experiences of senior researchers. Doctoral students are exposed to courses or seminars about history of the discipline as well as the field’s overarching purposes and its important contributors. . A second audience for this project include the practitioners and researchers in disciplines represented by the chapter authors. This audience could learn from the experiences of eminent researchers – how their experiences shaped their work, and what they see as their major contributions – and readers might relate their own work to that of the scholars. Authors were advised that they were free to organize their chapters as they saw fit, provided that their manuscripts contained these elements: 1) their perceived major contributions to the discipline, 2) major lessons learned during their careers, 3) their opinions about the personal and 4) situational factors (institutions and other affiliations, colleagues, advisors, and advisees) that stimulated their significant work. We hope that the contributions of distinguished researchers receive the wide readership they deserve and serves as a resource to the future practitioners and researchers in these fields. Acquired Wisdom/Education Review 20 Acquired Wisdom Series Editors Frederick Erickson University of California at Los Angeles Sonia Nieto University of Massachusetts, Amhurst Phil Winne Simon Fraser University Former Editors Sigmund Tobias, State University of New York at Albany J. D. Fletcher, Institute for Defense Analyses David Berliner, Arizona State University Advisory Board Members Gustavo Fischman, Arizona State University Arthur C. Graesser III, Memphis State University Teresa L. McCarty, University of California Los Angeles Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas is supported by the Scholarly Communications Group at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review. Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Review, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or Education Review. Education Review is published by the Scholarly Communications Group of the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Connect with Education Review on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education- Review/178358222192644) and on Twitter @EducReview https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Review/178358222192644 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Review/178358222192644