Like other posters I found the clarity around roles people play in the change process to be very interesting. They are similar to other documents I have read but use different language.
I especially related to the column on the influence of the principal. It is frustrating when the principal is not a trailblazer. Many years ago we had a principal who was a trailblazer but some central office staff may have considered him to be a saboteur at times. Now that I look at the descriptors for other roles I realize why some staff (trailblazers and pioneers) loved working with him while others were glad to see him retire.
I would describe our next principal as stay-at-home or a settler. It was discouraging that those of us who had momentum to continue projects had little, or no, support. The next principal was a slow trailblazer in some areas and a settler in others.
Now we have a principal that is a trailblazer in a few areas, mostly math - Yippee! The reaction by staff has been interesting to watch. Now that I have read these clear discriptors I believe that the staff who are struggling with her style may be stay-at-homes or even saboteurs. As a person who has some staff development responsibilities how do I meet the needs of all? The article says that it is "probably not wise to spend too much energy trying to convince the stay-at-homes that they too need to move to the frontier." The problem I have is if these stay-at-homes never move what happens to their students?
If central office provides administrators with staff development that can lead to developing skills that promote quality teaching but no one supervises the implementation of those strategies, how can principals improve their skills?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Pat I agree whole-heartedly on the role of the principle. I think that was what I was trying to get at in my post about how schools are latching onto programs to follow in a lock step fashion and are not examining student learning and teacher practice. I think the principle needs to be a trailblazer in order to free the staff from becoming prisoners to a program.
Yes, I have read many articles and have seen in my experience that if you do not have a principal on board, then your school will have a difficult time moving ahead with school change. It is interesting that when we were selecting a new principal, there were not any (or possibly very few) questions generated by the staff about a principal's role/vision in school change. Most of the questions were about visibility, communication and being child centered.
I agree that the role of the principal is key, but I wonder if that can be overcome with teachers, as leaders, who are trailblazers. The article states how trailblazers nee the opportunity to vist with other trailblazers and time to discuss and assimilate. If the principal is a saboteur than I can see things being halted, but if they play any of the other roles, I think teachers can move forward with key ideas. The NCTM information is so well respected that trailblazing is not without inherent support and validation.
Gene,
I am in agreement here. Even though a principal may not be a trailblazer (for any number of reasons, including overload), there is no question he/she is keenly attuned to results. Teaching via understanding produces results. All but the most hardened will follow that carrot.
Post a Comment