I will be honest: this has been the hardest reflection for me to write. I have had a hard time figuring out why answering such basic comprehension questions is giving me such fits. As I have read and reread the article looking for examples to answer the questions, I was finally struck by what was holding me back: I disagree with the assumptions the questions are making and the picture the authors paint of leadership within the case studies presented.
The way these questions are worded (particularly question four) presupposes that these teachers were denied teacher leadership opportunities (or at least some opportunities) based on unfair outside forces - a sort of man vs. world scenario. In many ways the authors of the paper do the same thing in their presentation of the cases.
Let me step aside for a moment and quickly answer questions 1-3. All three teachers were good at their jobs, were respected by their peers, and stepped up to lead in situations where they felt passionate. Some of these situations presumably met with success (committee memberships and chairmanships, mentoring, etc.). Unfortunately, none of the successful instances were profiled in this paper. But from the contexts presented it can be inferred that these teachers were seen as leaders by their peers not simply because of their experience, but also because of their professionalism and expertise.
It is unclear to me, then, why all three cases presented were situations where these teachers ran into doors that were not only closed, but deadbolted. In all three cases, the authors presented the teacher as a sympathetic character who was trying to fight against the “machine” to do what is right for students. The teacher is presented as a crusader who has no flaws in their plan while the administration and other people in positional power are painted as mindless, soulless bureaucrats who are more interested in the status quo than they are in helping students.
While I know that big machines tend to favor the status quo, I also know that the people within the machine of schools are often willing to re-route streams to help people help their students. In all three cases, what surprises me most is how the teachers seem to thwart what they know to be true - that systems have rules and you have to play by them. Brian even articulates that, “mostly what I have learned over the years is the value of people,” (p. 785). When he says this, he seems to imply that the principal did not value him and his ideas. But my question to him is: did he value her? Just because she is in positional power doesn’t mean she isn’t a person and that there is no need to worry about relationship building. This sort of reminds me of many of the teachers I have seen throughout my career who are constantly antagonistic with administration and then complain that they don’t get their way. They also lament that others in the school seem to be “favorites”. What they either fail to see or refuse to see is that the people who are actively thwarting administration aren’t going to suddenly get their way. As the old adage says, “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar”.
This same thing seems to apply to Laura and Jennifer, though to a lesser extent. They both ran into snags due to lack of recognition of the system at play. Somehow philosophically they seem to be arguing that there shouldn’t be a system, but if people are organizing a large group, no matter what you do, a system will emerge. Laura’s realization that, “the organization values structures over people,” seems naive at best. Of course it does. The question of leadership, in my mind, is how you work within the system or around the system to get the work done - and it starts by cultivating relationships with the people in positional power within the system. Of course there are a few people in those positions who are there undeservedly, but the vast majority of people working in those offices are there for a reason and they worked hard to get there. Just because their priorities don’t match up with yours doesn’t mean you aren’t valued. It is kind of a self-absorbed stance to think that your idea or your new program should suddenly be the norm out of nowhere - as if you are the only one in the system with the capacity to think so clearly.
The bottom line is this: all three teachers failed to recognize and work within the system.
On one last note, the name of the article also puzzles me. It didn’t appear to be about teachers trying to slide open doors between themselves in order to collaborate and work together. Instead it seemed to be about teacher leaders trying to walk up stairs but finding the doorways locked.
Silva, D., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102 (4). 779-804.
No comments:
Post a Comment