In the last posting, I left you with an assignment. I suggested a situation in which you are teaching
in a school that has been designated to accept a number of Syrian refugee students. Now this has not happened, to my knowledge,
but it can happen in the future. Why a
particular school district and school is chosen for such a designation is
beyond the concerns of the assignment, but let us say the school is noted for
being located in a tolerant and liberal community. Yet the situation, as I presented it, does
pose a challenge. Before addressing the
problem directly, let me focus on a few factors that are contained in the
situation as I presented it, but need further emphasis.
One important factor in this scenario that bears special note
is that the change I described is not emanating from an in-house observation of
a problem. The change is coming from the
district and reflects an up-down decision.
Perhaps the district has been ordered to accept the refugee children by
state authorities, but that in itself is not relevant to the conditions the
school community faces. The point is that
the school has been given this challenge by legally designated authorities and
whether such authority should or should not be able to issue such mandates is a
subject for another posting. Before you
dismiss this factor as something I am making up, I will tell you that all of
the major change efforts I experienced in a twenty-five year teaching career
came from the district – some originated at the district level; some originated
from the state. So, for purposes of this
assignment, let us accept that the school is going to get the refugees and now
it is up to the school personnel to make the best of it.
As I described the situation, one can assume the principal is
disposed to be inclusive in her decision-making. She called the teacher-parent meeting in
order to hear from the community. The
meeting, she feels, also allows members of the community to have some say – or,
at least, feel they have some say. It is
at that meeting when a parent stood up and voiced the following (paraphrased): who is doing all the bombing? It’s not the Christians; it’s not the
Jews. It’s the Muslims. Then the man looked at the assembled group
and asked: did you get that, sport? In
what he said, one could easily see that he was speaking for a sizable minority
of the audience as they, in turn, voiced, loudly, their approval not only for
the content of his concern, but for the tone in which he voiced it. There is “attitude” behind this objection.
Your assignment, if you chose to accept it, was to recommend
to the principal what she should do next.
In doing so, I invited you to apply the change strategy elements I have described
and explained over the last series of postings.
I didn’t expect you to sit down and write the principal an email, but
perhaps you could have given this challenge some thought. I promised that I would, in this posting,
give you my take on this situation – here goes.
First, the situation to this point calls for defining and
thinking of what I, as a teacher, and possibly the principal, don’t know. For example, are these new students going to
be here for a transition period or are they to become a regular part of the
student body? What are the language
requirements of these refugees? What is
the employability status of these children’s parents? What are their living accommodations? In other words, what is the scope of the
challenge before this school and community?
Then there is the extent of the opposition. Does the voiced opposition represent negative
beliefs in the community or is it contained within the group who showed up to
the meeting? How deep-seated are these
misgivings and how apt are those who harbor negative feelings willing to act on
them? In other words, while these
negative notions reflect an espoused theory, is it strong enough to generate an
active theory-in-use? And if it is that
strong, how much congruence will there be between their espoused theory and
their theory-in-use? Are there within
these people, contradicting espoused theories?
Are their assumptions firmly imbedded in their beliefs? There is obviously a need to talk with those members
of the community who are put out by the idea of accepting these students.
Now this is not an exhaustive list of things to consider,
concerning this situation. What I am
presenting is a notion of how the factors of successful change can be
used. What I just described relates to
the environmental factors of the situation; there is also the individual level
concerns. Let me add some questions that
can be asked of the individuals involved, both in the community and in the
staff. By the way, one should not assume
that everyone on staff is on board with this change. A lot of what the principal needs to deal
with will be obstacles presented by staff members. An important difference with this latter
group is that due to their employment status, these individuals might not be so
open and honest about their feelings, but can be even more undermining of an
attempt to implement a successful strategy.
Of course, when knowing about those with whom you work, this
comes in handy. That knowledge, on the
part of an administrator, should be one he/she actively seeks on an ongoing basis. For a school principal, this is not only a
concern for those who work under his/her authority, but also for the leaders of
the community. Why? So when a challenge as the one I am posing
arises, and they do, the principal and the other administrators don’t have to
start from scratch. All schools, like
any social entity, have to accommodate change.
This often calls on affected people changing their behavior and that
usually means, at least to some minimal degree, changes in their beliefs,
feelings, attitudes, and values. So, a
smart administrator seeks these types of information about those he/she is in
charge of and those with whom he/she has to interact. Hopefully, that is the case of our
principal. Be that as it may, here are
some questions she might ask of those involved:
·
Does
this person exhibit a reaction to problems which can be described as being
idealistic, realistic, or visceral?
·
Does
the person tend to maintain an even keel over problematic situations or does
he/she tend to become emotional? (Of
course, this is a matter of degree, so the principal might want to gauge this
observation.)
·
Does
this person tend to be demanding of the school and its staff or does he/she
offer support for what the school is doing?
(Again, this is a matter of degree.)
·
In
the choices to act, does this person see his/her self-interests in a short term
perspective or take more of a long term perspective? And are those interests sought after by
acting in isolation or is the person an organizer or joiner of collective
action?
·
What
tenor does this person adopt in expressing his/her knowledge, attitudes,
values, plans? That is, does this person
offer an authoritative, a reasonable, or an overemotional tenor?
And, in terms of this particular situation:
·
For
those agreeing with the protesting parent:
how truly are the expressed objections to the refugee children a concern
over safety issues (bombings and killings) or how much are they a reflection of
cultural biases against this particular minority?
With clear answers to these questions, our principal can go
about devising a strategy. Given the
long-term nature of the situation – these students are going to be around for a
long time – this principal would be wise to have good information regarding
these factors. This might prove
difficult, but the more information she can acquire, the better off she will be
in meeting this challenge. She would
also be assisted if she could count on a supportive faculty and other staff
members who are equally prone to being subjected to the factors these questions
reflect. One last thing, in all of this:
our principal would be well-served in being as honest in what she is doing as
possible. And this is my take on the
assignment.
