To begin, this question brings to memory a side bar 'joke' that was once shared in a teacher and school administration meeting.
The principal receives a memo that the students at the school are not meeting the NCLB mandates. The principal meets with the teacher and states, "What is your problem? Your students are not passing the test and how are you the teacher going to change your student's scores?" The teacher replies, "I have done everything humanly possible. It is the kids of today and not my teaching." Hence, the teacher has a parent conference with the mother the failing student and explains the student's academic and behavior problems. The mother states, "It's not my fault. I have done what I know to do and I have the same problems at home. It is because of the child's father." The father is then summoned to a conference with the teacher and the same information is shared with the father. The father exclaims, "What are you talking about? The problems are because of that mother and besides I don't have real proof that the kid is even mine." Therefore, what does this mean in the educational, organizational culture if no one is going to step up to the plate and make something positive happen for the child?
In a school organizational culture, it is imperative that the leader brings in a focus that this so called 'joke' that truly has real meaning be handled in a way that has a positive impact on the child's life.
Today, it takes all stakeholders to be accountable for not just the one student, but also the entire village of children. Bradford and Cohen's principles of influence through the Exchange Theory provide excellent guidance in strengthening the school culture. Relationship building between all stakeholders using ongoing reciprocally rewards is the most important means to build positive interaction (Clawson, 2006). As noted in the joke, the blaming and 'passing the buck' attitude will not build the relationship with all the necessary stakeholders in a child's life. It is important that every lineage in a student's school life have a bonding-overlapping connection starting with the top, the school administration all the way to the child. Too many times parents will not be supportive if there has been a negative experience with the administration team and school faculty. In the Cohen and Bradford model, Clawson notes, "Diagnose your relationship with the others person to see if the moral foundation of trust and respect are in place" (p. 219). This is critical for the administration to have a trust and respect climate with all stakeholders. Once their is a positive relationship, then stakeholders feel more comfortable to address their needs to the administration and then the administration will know better how to provide the needed resources (Clawson, 2006). As the relationship piece builds between the school stakeholders, then the vision of the school can truly be achieved because everyone is sharing the same mission for each student's academic, psychological, and physical well-being. In conclusion, a leader can quote the mission of the school, share the plans for academic gains, assign committees to varying task, and direct the day-to-day school operations. However, in my 23 years of education, if the school leader does not develop the 'open door' policy and build mutual, caring, true relationships, the school stakeholders do not become a cohesive school family and achieve the vision of success.
Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.).Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1 comment:
Hello Glenda,
In your blog you mentioned Cohen and Bradford model, of Clawson’s notes, which states to "Diagnose your relationship with the others person to see if the moral foundation of trust and respect are in place" (p. 219). You stressed that it is critical for the administration to have a trustful and respectful climate with all stakeholders. You went to mention that once their is a positive relationship, then stakeholders feel more comfortable to address their needs to the administration and then the administration will know better how to provide the needed resources (Clawson, 2006).
We once had this discussion in one of my other classes and we explained that all of these are great, but what do you do when the administration itself is not up to par? Many of them are only in the field for prestige and money and not for the love of the children.
I am not at all comfortable with the usage of the word stakeholders in relations to education. In my opinion the word it self has a negative undertone to it. I consider the word stakeholders to be synonymous with that of bet/gamble,rather than having a true sincerity in the educating of children/students. Which what the No Child Left Behind Act!” is supposed to be about?
What systems aren’t finding apparent is that our children/students are not dumb and are aware when they are being condescended as well. Good Post!
Rhonda
Post a Comment