In today's Facts and Arguments section of the Globe and Mail, there is an interesting article by Calvin White, a guidance counselor in British Columbia. He writes about the need to teach students to think critically and thereby help them to become more involved in the concerns of the 'real world,' something I have written about
previously. While I don't really entirely agree with his placing much of the blame on teachers, as opposed to the system itself, it certainly makes for some thought-provoking reading.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Servant Leadership
Imagine working in a school where the administration puts the needs of the organization before his or her own needs. Imagine an environment where that administration, instead of merely paying lip service to educational principle, casts aside politics, ego, ambition, and resume building, chooses to vigorously pursue excellence. This is not a utopia I am asking you to envisage. It is the world of servant leadership.
I first encountered the concept last spring while doing research for an educational project. Since there is an abundance of good and comprehensive information available on the Internet, I won’t go into a detailed explanation of it other than to say that the underlying philosophy involves managers (administrators) recognizing their staffs as the most important element in achieving the goals of the organization (effectively educating students), and do everything in their power to help the staff achieve those goals. While some object to this management approach as being little more than a form of condescension, as opposed to, for example, making the staff partners in the operation of the organization (which, in my experience usually is little more than an exercise in rhetoric), I can’t help but think that its true practice would have a revolutionary impact on staff morale and hence staff effectiveness.
As many teachers will know, the standard style of management is hierarchical, with a vast distance separating the leaders from the led. The greatest difficulty with this form is that it often involves an either conscious or unconscious condescension on the part of management. By virtue of their position, they frequently adopt propriety language betraying their true feelings about those who work ‘beneath’ them. How often have I cringed to hear those in positions of authority talk about ‘my staff’ or ‘my teachers!’ Such language and biases do nothing to foster the kind of true collaboration needed to succeed in education today.
However, one of the major impediments to servant leadership is that its success is almost entirely dependent upon the personality of the administrator. A questionnaire found on one website
underscores the difficulties of finding a true servant leader:
Do people believe that you are willing to sacrifice
your own self-interest for the good of the group?
Do people believe that you want to hear their ideas and
will value them?
Do people believe that you will understand what is
happening in their lives and how it affects them?
Do people come to you when the chips are down or
when something traumatic has happened in their lives?
Do others believe that you have a strong awareness for
what is going on?
Do others follow your requests because they want to
as opposed to because they “have to”?
Do others communicate their ideas and vision for the
organization when you are around?
Do others have confidence in your ability to anticipate
the future and its consequences?
Do others believe you are preparing the organization to
make a positive difference in the world?
Do people believe that you are committed to helping
them develop and grow?
Do people feel a strong sense of community in the organization
that you lead?
I strongly believe that there is much merit in adopting a new management model. But until school boards are willing to adopt fresh criteria in their selection processes, including psychological testing of perspective administrators, servant leadership is likely to remain a rarity in public education.
I first encountered the concept last spring while doing research for an educational project. Since there is an abundance of good and comprehensive information available on the Internet, I won’t go into a detailed explanation of it other than to say that the underlying philosophy involves managers (administrators) recognizing their staffs as the most important element in achieving the goals of the organization (effectively educating students), and do everything in their power to help the staff achieve those goals. While some object to this management approach as being little more than a form of condescension, as opposed to, for example, making the staff partners in the operation of the organization (which, in my experience usually is little more than an exercise in rhetoric), I can’t help but think that its true practice would have a revolutionary impact on staff morale and hence staff effectiveness.
As many teachers will know, the standard style of management is hierarchical, with a vast distance separating the leaders from the led. The greatest difficulty with this form is that it often involves an either conscious or unconscious condescension on the part of management. By virtue of their position, they frequently adopt propriety language betraying their true feelings about those who work ‘beneath’ them. How often have I cringed to hear those in positions of authority talk about ‘my staff’ or ‘my teachers!’ Such language and biases do nothing to foster the kind of true collaboration needed to succeed in education today.
However, one of the major impediments to servant leadership is that its success is almost entirely dependent upon the personality of the administrator. A questionnaire found on one website
underscores the difficulties of finding a true servant leader:
Do people believe that you are willing to sacrifice
your own self-interest for the good of the group?
Do people believe that you want to hear their ideas and
will value them?
Do people believe that you will understand what is
happening in their lives and how it affects them?
Do people come to you when the chips are down or
when something traumatic has happened in their lives?
Do others believe that you have a strong awareness for
what is going on?
Do others follow your requests because they want to
as opposed to because they “have to”?
Do others communicate their ideas and vision for the
organization when you are around?
Do others have confidence in your ability to anticipate
the future and its consequences?
Do others believe you are preparing the organization to
make a positive difference in the world?
Do people believe that you are committed to helping
them develop and grow?
Do people feel a strong sense of community in the organization
that you lead?
I strongly believe that there is much merit in adopting a new management model. But until school boards are willing to adopt fresh criteria in their selection processes, including psychological testing of perspective administrators, servant leadership is likely to remain a rarity in public education.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Profit Before Student Health
There was an interesting story in yesterday’s Globe and Mail entitled ‘School food policies get low marks.’ It asserts that governments have failed Canadian students by permitting the sale of very unhealthy food in schools. While some provinces fared better than others, a report card released by The Centre for Science in the Public Interest gave an F to three: Saskatchewan, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. No province received an A.
This story got me thinking about the last school I taught at, and the unpleasant consequences of a little activism for better nutrition within that school. It all started one lunch hour when, emerging from the staffroom, I saw something that even
my cynical eyes found hard to accept: a candy dispensing machine was being installed right beside my room! Assuming this was the result of miscommunication, I called the office to express my incredulity, only to be told by the Vice-Principal that it was being installed under the Principal’s authority. Several of my colleagues spoke to him about the inappropriateness of this location, to no avail.
There was something deeply disconcerting about entering the school at 8:00 a.m. to find students feeding the machine their money in order to secure a candy bar in place of a decent breakfast. Equally disturbing were the compromises the machine’s presence forced me to adopt, such as having to close my door at about 9:30 every morning rather than allow my class to become distracted by the cafeteria lady emptying the last previous day’s profits from the machine. I was told this was the only time the task could be performed, as the lady only worked at the school four hours per day. This cacophonous clash of commerce competing with the art of English instruction was, I felt, richly symbolic of the many philistine priorities that seem endemic to education today, and certainly made a mockery of education officials’ public expressions of concern for student health and well-being.
Because it was right beside my room, I eventually decided to take matters into my own hands. I began printing up posters warning of the rising risks of diabetes amongst young people, the relationship between junk food and heart disease, the epidemic of teen obesity, etc. Ultimately, my efforts were rewarded with discipline which took the form of a “written verbal reprimand” (something of an oxymoron, I always thought) which I successfully grieved. After about seven months, the machine was relocated to the school foyer, to join the Pepsi dispensing machines. Now students could get both their caffeine and sugar fixes in one convenient location.
One thing that the public probably doesn’t understand is what a moneymaker the sale of junk food is for schools. For every greasy, cholesterol-laden hamburger, fat-drenched batch of french-fries or poutine sold, for every candy bar dispensed, there is a kickback to the school. The exact amount of the kickback in my school was a closely-guarded secret, something even the Federation could not ascertain. When I made inquiries of the cafeteria management as to why healthy snacks could not be placed in the vending machines, I was told that had been tried but there was little money to be made due to poor sales. While it may be true that the money from such operations is needed to supplement the government grants for education, surely endangering the health of our students is too high a price to pay, and unquestionably makes education decision-makers complicit in their physical decline.
This has to change.
This story got me thinking about the last school I taught at, and the unpleasant consequences of a little activism for better nutrition within that school. It all started one lunch hour when, emerging from the staffroom, I saw something that even
my cynical eyes found hard to accept: a candy dispensing machine was being installed right beside my room! Assuming this was the result of miscommunication, I called the office to express my incredulity, only to be told by the Vice-Principal that it was being installed under the Principal’s authority. Several of my colleagues spoke to him about the inappropriateness of this location, to no avail.
There was something deeply disconcerting about entering the school at 8:00 a.m. to find students feeding the machine their money in order to secure a candy bar in place of a decent breakfast. Equally disturbing were the compromises the machine’s presence forced me to adopt, such as having to close my door at about 9:30 every morning rather than allow my class to become distracted by the cafeteria lady emptying the last previous day’s profits from the machine. I was told this was the only time the task could be performed, as the lady only worked at the school four hours per day. This cacophonous clash of commerce competing with the art of English instruction was, I felt, richly symbolic of the many philistine priorities that seem endemic to education today, and certainly made a mockery of education officials’ public expressions of concern for student health and well-being.
Because it was right beside my room, I eventually decided to take matters into my own hands. I began printing up posters warning of the rising risks of diabetes amongst young people, the relationship between junk food and heart disease, the epidemic of teen obesity, etc. Ultimately, my efforts were rewarded with discipline which took the form of a “written verbal reprimand” (something of an oxymoron, I always thought) which I successfully grieved. After about seven months, the machine was relocated to the school foyer, to join the Pepsi dispensing machines. Now students could get both their caffeine and sugar fixes in one convenient location.
One thing that the public probably doesn’t understand is what a moneymaker the sale of junk food is for schools. For every greasy, cholesterol-laden hamburger, fat-drenched batch of french-fries or poutine sold, for every candy bar dispensed, there is a kickback to the school. The exact amount of the kickback in my school was a closely-guarded secret, something even the Federation could not ascertain. When I made inquiries of the cafeteria management as to why healthy snacks could not be placed in the vending machines, I was told that had been tried but there was little money to be made due to poor sales. While it may be true that the money from such operations is needed to supplement the government grants for education, surely endangering the health of our students is too high a price to pay, and unquestionably makes education decision-makers complicit in their physical decline.
This has to change.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Battlestar Galactica and Education
I’ve been getting caught up in the viewing of a show I recently discovered called Battlestar Galactica, not the cheesy 1970’s version, but the new one starring Edward James Olmos. As with all good science fiction, this series is uncompromising in the moral questions it poses and societal situations it explores. The one I watched last night, called “Dirty Hands,” reminded me a great deal of what the working situation was at the time of my retirement.
In “Dirty Hands,” the workers responsible for processing the fuel essential for the fleet to be ready to escape from their enemy, the Cylons, should another attack come, are becoming increasingly restive due to the fact that they are working 7 days a week, have been for months, with no relief in sight. Those in power utter the usual platitudes about the important work that the fuel processors do, etc., but ultimately a general strike is called, which is looked upon as an act of treason by those in command. Eventually, however, the strike leader is able to get a meeting with the President and convince her that their society is rapidly devolving into a slave-owner dichotomy, and that career opportunities are determined essentially by what planetary colony people are originally from. He persuades her that it is time to extend job opportunities and also for the leaders to begin doing some of the less desirable jobs or, in other words, ‘get their hands dirty.’
So what does this fine episode have to do with teaching? If it isn’t obvious, in so many jurisdictions our profession has become polarized; teachers and administrators occupy, to borrow a famous Canadian expression describing the distinctness and separateness of the English and French cultures, “two solitudes.” To be sure, all the right things are said by the leaders; they talk about the important work their teachers do, and how they appreciate their efforts, etc. etc. ad nauseam. However, in far too many situations, once that shallow rhetoric is ripped way, it is obvious at both the school and the board or district level that those words are mere political expedients meaning absolutely nothing.
To demonstrate from my own experience, near the end of my career I wrote a letter to the Director complaining about certain things. To my surprise, he invited me to meet with him. He proved to be a very attentive listener, took copious notes on the suggestions I made for reversing the deteriorating staff morale, said he would take my suggestions to Human Resources, and then, the predictable happened --- absolutely NOTHING.
I often think that because so many of them have become such creatures of politics, administrators and principals forget that teachers are experts at detecting insincerity. As I’m sure many know, it doesn’t take too long to demoralize staff if a principal seeks advice and input from a committee, and then simply ignores that advice because it doesn’t fit with his or her preconceived notions. It is far better not to pretend you value staff input than to insult teachers in such a manner.
As for “getting their hands dirty,” how often have we ever seen a principal or vice-principal take an on-call for an absent teacher? Of course, they would argue that they have much more important things to do in running the school, but what could be more important than showing some leadership and experiencing what the “troops” experience?
Or for that matter, how often do you see your administrators in the halls amongst the students? If you have such people in your school, consider yourself very lucky. My experience was frequently that they were often not even in the school, instead attending meetings at the board office, no doubt ‘seeing the bigger picture’ which for many meant promotions in the not too distant future.
Later this week I would like to look at the concept of ‘servant leadership,’ something that I think could be a very positive development in many of our schools.
In “Dirty Hands,” the workers responsible for processing the fuel essential for the fleet to be ready to escape from their enemy, the Cylons, should another attack come, are becoming increasingly restive due to the fact that they are working 7 days a week, have been for months, with no relief in sight. Those in power utter the usual platitudes about the important work that the fuel processors do, etc., but ultimately a general strike is called, which is looked upon as an act of treason by those in command. Eventually, however, the strike leader is able to get a meeting with the President and convince her that their society is rapidly devolving into a slave-owner dichotomy, and that career opportunities are determined essentially by what planetary colony people are originally from. He persuades her that it is time to extend job opportunities and also for the leaders to begin doing some of the less desirable jobs or, in other words, ‘get their hands dirty.’
So what does this fine episode have to do with teaching? If it isn’t obvious, in so many jurisdictions our profession has become polarized; teachers and administrators occupy, to borrow a famous Canadian expression describing the distinctness and separateness of the English and French cultures, “two solitudes.” To be sure, all the right things are said by the leaders; they talk about the important work their teachers do, and how they appreciate their efforts, etc. etc. ad nauseam. However, in far too many situations, once that shallow rhetoric is ripped way, it is obvious at both the school and the board or district level that those words are mere political expedients meaning absolutely nothing.
To demonstrate from my own experience, near the end of my career I wrote a letter to the Director complaining about certain things. To my surprise, he invited me to meet with him. He proved to be a very attentive listener, took copious notes on the suggestions I made for reversing the deteriorating staff morale, said he would take my suggestions to Human Resources, and then, the predictable happened --- absolutely NOTHING.
I often think that because so many of them have become such creatures of politics, administrators and principals forget that teachers are experts at detecting insincerity. As I’m sure many know, it doesn’t take too long to demoralize staff if a principal seeks advice and input from a committee, and then simply ignores that advice because it doesn’t fit with his or her preconceived notions. It is far better not to pretend you value staff input than to insult teachers in such a manner.
As for “getting their hands dirty,” how often have we ever seen a principal or vice-principal take an on-call for an absent teacher? Of course, they would argue that they have much more important things to do in running the school, but what could be more important than showing some leadership and experiencing what the “troops” experience?
Or for that matter, how often do you see your administrators in the halls amongst the students? If you have such people in your school, consider yourself very lucky. My experience was frequently that they were often not even in the school, instead attending meetings at the board office, no doubt ‘seeing the bigger picture’ which for many meant promotions in the not too distant future.
Later this week I would like to look at the concept of ‘servant leadership,’ something that I think could be a very positive development in many of our schools.
Friday, September 28, 2007
More on Faith-Based School Funding
If this topic interests you, there is a fairly comprehensive article on the issue in today's Globe and Mail.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Faith-Based Schools - Part 2
I came across a couple of articles in The Hamilton Spectator today on the issue of public funding of faith-based schools. One is by Eveyln Myrie, Tory's school funding plan is complicated and the other is by Zeynep Basal,No time for religious ghettos in new world.
Check them out if you are interested in looking at the issue from the perspectives of a Jamaican-Canadian and a Turkish-Canadian.
Check them out if you are interested in looking at the issue from the perspectives of a Jamaican-Canadian and a Turkish-Canadian.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Public Funding of Faith-Based Schools
As a Canadian, I am proud of our multiculturalism. Although not a perfect policy, it reflects, I think, one of our defining characteristics as a nation. However, during the current Ontario election campaign, there is a policy being promoted by the Conservative leader John Tory that I cannot support. His election promise to extend public education funding to faith-based schools is ill-considered and divisive.
Currently, about 53000 children attend such privately-funded schools. Tory’s contention that the extension of funding will ‘bring them into the public tent’ and promote understanding and greater tolerance makes no sense to me. First, a public system, by its nature, is open to all, and at least in theory offers equality of opportunity. Faith-based schools cater to an exclusive clientele and refuse to hire those who do not share their beliefs or religious denominations. I doubt that would change were funding extended. One has only to look at the publicly financed Catholic system to see its discriminatory hiring practices which no one challenges them on. The fact is that an applicant must be a good practising Catholic with a note from the parish priest to even get an interview. Indeed, they even refuse to share school buses with them, even though transportation costs could be reduced significantly. Would it be any different with other faiths and denominations?
Secondly, Tory’s assertion that it will bring people together is a non sequitor. When I went to Catholic elementary and high school, I was rarely exposed to people of other faiths. How would the extension of funding result in anything different? Indeed, isn’t it likely that the current 53000 enrollment would jump considerably if people didn’t have to pay the tuition, thereby increasing educational segregation?
Finally, and most importantly, a proposal that would take at least a half-billion dollars out of the public system can’t be healthy for that system. I was reading in the Globe the other day that there are many schools that now have to rely almost exclusively on fund-raisers in order to acquire books for the library. Indeed, Heather Reisman, CEO of Chapters and Indigo, has embarked on a program to fill that gap. What more sacrifices to the quality of public education will have to be made if funding is extended to others?
Mr. Tory has said publicly that this is the right thing to do. My own thought is it probably had its origins in an ill-advised bid to attract votes in large multi-cultural centers such as Toronto. In any event, polls show that it is a very unpopular proposal for the majority of Ontarians.
Election Day, October 10, will see which view prevails.
Currently, about 53000 children attend such privately-funded schools. Tory’s contention that the extension of funding will ‘bring them into the public tent’ and promote understanding and greater tolerance makes no sense to me. First, a public system, by its nature, is open to all, and at least in theory offers equality of opportunity. Faith-based schools cater to an exclusive clientele and refuse to hire those who do not share their beliefs or religious denominations. I doubt that would change were funding extended. One has only to look at the publicly financed Catholic system to see its discriminatory hiring practices which no one challenges them on. The fact is that an applicant must be a good practising Catholic with a note from the parish priest to even get an interview. Indeed, they even refuse to share school buses with them, even though transportation costs could be reduced significantly. Would it be any different with other faiths and denominations?
Secondly, Tory’s assertion that it will bring people together is a non sequitor. When I went to Catholic elementary and high school, I was rarely exposed to people of other faiths. How would the extension of funding result in anything different? Indeed, isn’t it likely that the current 53000 enrollment would jump considerably if people didn’t have to pay the tuition, thereby increasing educational segregation?
Finally, and most importantly, a proposal that would take at least a half-billion dollars out of the public system can’t be healthy for that system. I was reading in the Globe the other day that there are many schools that now have to rely almost exclusively on fund-raisers in order to acquire books for the library. Indeed, Heather Reisman, CEO of Chapters and Indigo, has embarked on a program to fill that gap. What more sacrifices to the quality of public education will have to be made if funding is extended to others?
Mr. Tory has said publicly that this is the right thing to do. My own thought is it probably had its origins in an ill-advised bid to attract votes in large multi-cultural centers such as Toronto. In any event, polls show that it is a very unpopular proposal for the majority of Ontarians.
Election Day, October 10, will see which view prevails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
