This blog, of late,
has again taken up the topic of change.
This fits in the overall goal of the blog, promoting federation theory
as the guiding construct for civics education and its adoption that calls for
change. That would be organizational
change at the school site. In addressing
this topic, the blog has reviewed the first of a three-dimensional approach to
change, the structural foundation of schools and school districts.
The blog has also provided a list of
standards by which to determine whether a school needs to change its
curriculum.[1] Unfortunately, reported performance levels of
American schools indicate deficiencies relative to these standards exist. Once deficiencies are identified, analyzed
(either quantitatively or qualitatively), described, and explained, a change
agent is ready deal with the social (as opposed to the structural) landscape in
which potential change will occur.
This
is usually the school site. If the
problem(s) is of sufficient seriousness to justify a transformative change,
then the change agent can begin visualizing the school site as a landscape full
of obstacles. This judgement is not
stated in an excessively negative sense.
After all, that site is where fellow employees/colleagues work and spend
a great deal of time. It is where a lot of
personal conversations – shared confidences – take place.
The
image is not of one putting on battle fatigues, but, in terms of accomplishing
meaningful change, it is one of which where many obstacles will exist. Why?
Well, as alluded to earlier in this blog, what exists, exists for a
reason. People grow use to or benefit from
how things are done. They might not see
or understand how what is done or exists contributes to any problems or even if
problems exist. Or they might have
rationalized the problems away – “yes, they exist, but there is nothing that
can be done.”
Of course, a change agent believes
that there are problems, that something can be done to solve or alleviate the
problems, and that the resources – including the personnel – are present so
that a change effort is worth initiating.
He/she doesn’t assume success in any change effort but does believe a
chance for it is there – a chance big enough to exert the effort.
For a more comprehensive description
of how a landscape can be challenging or how a change agent should view such a
landscape, the reader is referred to the posting, “In This Place,” November 17,
2015. There, the text identifies a quote
by the sociologist, Philip Selznick, and his warning that there are times when
a coercive approach is warranted. But he
further warns that such an approach is too readily employed – often when it is
not warranted.
To
institute meaningful, lasting change, one needs to change values and attitudes
– i.e., to institute transformative change.
That is difficult to do, and attempts will face obstacles. It is harder still if one adopts a coercive
strategy. This account offers a
consideration: it is in an either/or form
regarding how the change landscape is characterized; this option reflects a
source from which obstacles emanate.
That
is, is the landscape an arena or a square; is it more akin to a boxing arena or
a public square? Of course, this is not
an either/or choice, it reflects degrees in the political dispositions among
the staff members in a school. The first
image is one of conflict and the second of consensus.
So,
the question or obstacle is how much the social environment is one in which
subjects are competitive, at odds, and/or contentious. These are considered problematic and the more
it can be described as such, the more it is an arena; the less so, the more it
is a square.
An arena is enhanced by ego
challenging interactions, coveting attitudes and behaviors, competitive
approaches, vertical power relations, formal roles, structured processes,
strange physical and social surroundings, and definite expectations. A square is enhanced by ego accommodating
interactions, soliciting attitudes and behaviors, collaborative efforts,
horizontal power relations, informal roles, spontaneous processes, familiar
physical and social surroundings, and open-minded expectations.
Transformative
change and a federated change approach ultimately relies on “square” qualities
and their related beliefs. A change
agent, therefore, is helped in any subsequent activities to identify staff
members who are prone to be “square” actors, identify and develop ways to deal
with “arena” staff members, thinking of ways of advancing those
square-enhancing qualities such as collaboration, and convincing administration
members to think in “horizontal” ways.
A
self-appointed change agent will find these aims as challenging, but it is a
good way to determine if the landscape is sufficiently apt to becoming
federated and, in turn, how open it is to transformative change. These “square” qualities are so important,
that if the change agent feels there is not enough of it among the faculty,
increasing it would be one of the first steps toward transformative
change.
And
to do that, a constant communication strategy should disseminate the evidence
of how and, if known, why the deficiencies in the school exist. Honest communication does not only
communicate the deficiencies, it also says that the recipient of the
information is part of the solution – a “square” messaging. This is but one way a more “square-ness” disposition
is encouraged.
This
should be done, as much as possible, in a professional manner; avoid
threatening language; and not, at that point, argue for a specific change
agenda or policy. Instead, the message
should be: “there’s trouble right here
in River City Elementary/Middle/High School.”[2] And to do so, solid evidence – like test
scores, testimonials from teachers or parents, and/or related statistics – is needed.
It
is felt that if a preachy message is also needed to be communicated to the faculty
and/or to the administration, it should be that the school exists to meet these
identified standards. Short of that, the
school is not meeting its communal responsibilities. It is, in effect, shortchanging the taxpayers
of the district and that should not be sustained.
Oh,
by the way, not only is one interested in whether the standards are met, but
whether the measures used in judging whether they are met – measures of student
performance – accurately do so. If not, voila, one has the initial, specific
problem to be addressed. Evaluation of
school performance, as reflected by student performance – is something
districts and states have become more aware of in recent decades and there is professional
literature regarding this concern.[3]
[1] Effectiveness is defined in terms of student conduct and
measures it by the levels students of the school: demonstrate learning
curricular content; demonstrate learning skills in acquiring relevant knowledge
associated with curricular content; demonstrate dispositional outlook
supportive of being a productive member of the student body; perform their
student roles in a civil manner; and follow, in a collaborative fashion, those
behaviors that abide by the reasonable policies of the school and school
system.
[2] Adopted from
the musical/film, The Music Man. Meredith Wilson and Franklin Lacey
(playrights), The Music Man
(Broadway, 1957).
[3] In Florida, for
example, schools are given an overall grade reflecting how well their students
do on state tests. Some argue that these
evaluations are too much based on testing and does not give a sufficiently broader
view. That controversy is a topic for
another book, but it is a question that a staff can ask, debate, and ameliorate
by instituting appropriate policies within a school, a school district, or at
the state level.
No comments:
Post a Comment