Kelly Girtz
A Few Thoughts on Shared Governance in Schools
EDUL 6014 – Shared Governance in Schools
November 12, 2005
Introduction
In
preparing to offer a survey of items that affect my perspective on shared
governance, I developed a set of ideas stretching from here to
Ensemble Performance
Several years of teaching has reinforced for me that the best classroom instruction is a group endeavor. My finest days, whether five years ago or last week, were days when I sensed a dynamic among myself and the students that was electrifying, that raised us out of the classroom, and lifted us beyond our prescribed roles of “teacher” and “student.” On these occasions, not only was there a joy in the room, there was heightened understanding of the topic under discussion, be it the life of a Cherokee in 1835 or contemporary observations of our government. Just as I wish to maximize opportunities for ensemble efforts in my classroom, I need to bring them to a staff as an educational leader.
Owens, in “Adaptive Leadership” (2004) describes effective leadership as an “ensemble performance.” Looking at a well-functioning staff, one should be able to discern a leadership style by observing members of an ensemble at work. If I am able to operate in a successful shared governance school, an outsider should be impressed by a meeting of any cluster of faculty members because of the atmosphere of cooperation that pervades the school. Owens also emphasizes the value of the organization by stating that the individual leader should not hold only “referent power,” power that exists only through personal magnetism. If that were the case, it would be easy to avoid the real core strengths of a shared governance school: democratic opportunity and shared goals. Again, this perspective on educational leadership reflects my peak classroom experiences, in which the center of attention is not me – introducing the topic and providing reference points, it is the entire class – steering in new directions, raising concerns, wondering about aspects of the topic, then answering one another’s questions. In the same way, each member of a staff that I “lead” through formal designation needs equal opportunity to contribute to the development of the school.
Echoing this pursuit of a strong group dynamic, Lambert (1995) also places high value on the school culture as an entity existing above and beyond an individual leader. This perspective mirrors that of thoughtful social activists I have admired who are careful to avoid a developing a “cult of personality”, as one strong personality can overwhelm a cause to the detriment of long-term goals. The “Lone Ranger” leader can also be found in education – he with mythical status surrounding his work, as if followers could not possibly share the secret knowledge that their leader possesses. This paternalistic figure looks down on followers as a lower caste. They are unable to share in his wisdom or power. I wish for no particular celebration to surround my leadership role. The success of the organization, rather than adulation, will fuel my leadership.
Furthermore, Owens mentions that in interacting with others, a supportive leader must take a collaborative approach rather than making constant demands. I would take this one step further in wishing for faculty members to be just as questioning or driving of processes as the formal leader. As members of an organization see themselves at the center of school processes, it will not be extrinsic motivation, but their sense of collective significance that encourages them to perform well. As I discuss the school’s needs with staff members, I will encourage them to address new possibilities. Certainly, with their contact with the students, they are in the ideal position to identify needs.
Recently, one of my colleagues had an opportunity to inform another of grant funds available for equipment to enhance her instruction, which she wished to enhance. She was able to take advantage of this information, to expand the range of classroom opportunities. This mutual encouragement is what I would like to promote among staff members in any leadership role I inhabit. Encouraging staff members to be engaged in the processes that bring resources and direction to a school embeds motivation in the entire team as a unit, with a common goals and pursuits. This provides the organization a power stronger than they would have under a dictatorship (even a benevolent one), with each staff member operating individually or in isolation. In a well functioning school, even losing a leader would still leave a creative entity with forward momentum.
Despite the benefits of being part of an engaged group of teachers, Roberts finds (in Blase and Blase) that most teachers rarely discuss instruction in their shared time. This is a sad commentary on the state of teacher collaboration. This may be because many teachers feel like they are not in full control of their own instruction, and so they focus on side issues: student behavior, lunch schedules, and responsibilities outside the classroom. Teachers must have a hand in the development of the school’s direction, not simply a say in minutia, or they will not benefit from each others’ expertise. Blase and Blase find that collaboration among the faculty (as well as parents) brings a greater focus on instruction. When multiple players are involved, work that would be private becomes public and momentum is able to gather behind instructional priorities. This opportunity will come partly by providing time for collaboration in teachers’ schedules. In any school that I work, the precious resource of time for teachers to reflect and collaborate will be sought and guarded. In this way teachers will be actively encouraged to develop direction together to support their classroom instruction.
Broadly Shared Power
In addition to having input from all members of an organization, it is important that actual decision-making authority be shared across the group. The downward focused power dynamic - the traditional hierarchy - always carries with it the slight threat of punishment, the knowledge that a lesser member may be left out or stricken from the circle of knowledge. This sense alone is enough to keep the unit from being truly productive. I never want my authority to exist because I wield the formal structures that are employed by principals – teacher evaluations and records of infractions.
Hierarchies are avoided in successful shared governance schools studied by Blase and Blase (2001). In these schools, the principal is a member of the leadership team, not the head. Perhaps the role of principal is an outmoded one that is best left in the ashbin of educational history. The smoothest moments among the staff that I work with now happen through consensus, sometimes without the help of the principal. He is often out of the building, and we are able to develop plans as a unit without his active input. Discipline procedures, scheduling standards and curricula have been developed this way. As an educational leader, I will encourage the staff to develop systems that meet their needs without steering every decision. With resources at their disposal, the respect of the principal, and the common desire for students to succeed, many schools I have worked in would have moved much further than when we were admonished or disciplined as we explored plans to improve our instruction.
Whenever I am working in a school that has not extended as far as necessary toward democratic leadership, I must be willing to suggest this direction. It will not be an easy process, a reality that I discuss in the next section, but it is worth the difficulty. When staff members have a real active authority in a school, I believe they will extend this approach to their own classrooms and will carry this desire forward into other places and positions that they come to inhabit. It is these sparks that can light the torch of a revolution in education.
The Process of Developing Power Sharing Skills
Blase and Blase discuss the development of shared decision making in their discussion of Kirby (1991), who notes that opportunities to provide knowledge to teachers must be a built into the structure of shared governance schools. New teachers to a building may be unfamiliar with the process of making decisions and need training in these tactics. Simply espousing the desire to share authority is not enough. The meeting time, consensus building efforts and voting structures necessary to carry out democracy must be developed.
I am prone to enthusiasm when a new endeavor is underway, but my enthusiasm must include an understanding of teachers’ potential uneasiness. Transformation must be carefully cultivated, as educators are wary of being taken for granted, used and abused, and told they are valued as an exercise in lip service. Owens’ discussion of critical theory reminds me that the alternatives to our dysfunctional system are scary because change usually signifies disruption and dislocation in the minds of teachers. If teachers are gun shy or bruised, they might not respond enthusiastically to any new initiative, especially one as taxing as the initial stages of democracy. It is important in dealing with a staff unfamiliar with shared governance to begin slowly by doing the daily things that lead in the direction of shared governance: listening, asking questions, and providing resources to support instruction. Blase and Blase (2001) suggest a series of questions (“What contextual factors might complicate this effort?”, etc.) that leaders interested in developing shared decision making structures can ask themselves as they embark on this journey. After teachers grow comfortable with my presence through those preliminary stages, then construction of formal shared governance structures can expand.
Maintaining Shared Governance
Even when it is in place, shared governance requires regular maintenance. Bredeson notes this need (in Blase and Blase, 2001), citing one school that continually utilizes problem solving teams to stoke its fires of renewal. Those in leadership roles often get bogged down in the minutia of the moment, but I will seek constant opportunity to invest myself in the broader needs of my colleagues, to “keep my ear to the ground,” to have my door literally and figuratively open to the staff and ready to pursue their concerns.
Additionally, Owens’ description of “leadership and vision” encourages me to look at the “big picture” with the staff, rather than simply act on the needs of the moment. To engage broader concerns, there must be constant checks for understanding and evaluations of initiatives underway within the organization. These checks must be performed together, as we respond to changing needs and maintain mutual understanding. Pellicer provides a series of “status checking” queries to encourage exploration of every aspect of governance. Without constant reflection, well-intentioned leaders can find themselves far from their intended course. I hindsight, this should be obvious to me, as there has not been an educational leader that I have worked with that has managed continual pursuit of stated priorities, even when they were shared by the staff. There has always been some breakdown in communication, often seemed to hinging on the distance of the leader from the real scene of the challenge: the classroom. It is commonly a requirement that principals and other leadership personnel spend some time in the classroom. However, often this requirement is not held to or done in a cursory way, with a principal acting as a substitute. To continue to understand my colleagues’ needs, I will develop regular opportunities to collaborate on instruction in meaningful ways: developing and delivering lessons together or planning cross-class opportunities with a variety of teachers.
As an educational leader, there are decisions I will be asked to make that my teachers will have first-hand knowledge of. In these situations, I will keep those around me “in the loop” and seek their input. Blase and Blase finds that successful principals ensure that there are not decisions made that have not been vetted by the staff. They suggest informing staff members of the issues and options under consideration. I will keep a running list of upcoming decisions that need to be made which will be shared with my colleagues. They must not be blindsided by issues that impact the school.
From Transactional Leadership to a Condition of the Heart
Burn (in Owens) provides a thoughtful critique of “transactional” leadership, which is best characterized by the phrase “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” The trouble with this exchange system as the basis for leadership is that these transactions always focus on individuals’ needs, not the higher needs of the organization. Additionally, the needs that are met here are those at a low level of operation – photocopies and break time, rather than involving real problem solving. In my interaction with teachers now, I do not feel the need to seek constant exchanges of favors, instead, we largely manage to focus on real issues of instruction. I believe I will be able to carry this into my leadership roles. I wish seek collaboration when I have a need and provide input when to encourage growth within the school. Certainly, the mission of educating young people is so important that there must be deeper meaning than what is found in a simple set of favors.
The deeper meaning I find in my work is a force that I hope will draw my colleagues close to me in pursuit of a covenant to seek the best opportunities for our students. Educating students is a powerful component of my daily existence, of my spirit. I know this a trait shared by many in this field, and one they wish to nourish. Max De Pree (in Pellicer 1999) describes this state as a “condition of the heart.” Emphasizing this connection between inner desires and the outer world of the school can move a staff to interact more meaningfully than as a set of paid performers. Along these lines, Pellicer (1999) references Serviovanni’s belief that being a significant part of an organization requires an “emotional commitment.” Certainly, the experience of education can create the emotional hold of the best art, the best relationships.
The interaction I have with students is where this condition has been most evident for me. The students I work with are a rich part of my life. If we interacted only for me to provide information to them, or just discuss the formal curriculum, I would not have the devotion to them (or they to me) that keeps me going. Even in managing structural change and organization-wide issues, it is more than my intellect that is engaged in the job. There is an undeniable attachment that I have for students and colleagues that transcends my job description. I have the sense that this is perceptible to those that I work with, and it will be fuel for my success in leadership roles. It does not act alone, but passion may be the item that seals my success in education.
Communicating this desire for a tight spiritual bond may be difficult to convey in the context of a leadership role, and it might not be something that is communicated simply by saying “this means more than any of us alone.” It is likely that the informal interactions that I share with colleagues will be one of the things that keep us tied together. In addition, this collective sense will be something generated over time as staff members show their positive outlook toward the work of educating our children.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the items that I have mentioned in this paper are many and varied. It would be easy to assume a leadership role and leave behind some of these notions as I become overwhelmed by the volume of activity swirling around me. Rest assured, reader, this is a dilemma that I have considered. Hope of a better tomorrow will lead me to constantly reflect on whether there is true shared leadership in my organization or if this is just a label to make myself feel that I have stayed true to honorable goals. I will ask those I work with to keep me focused, to let me know when I am straying from the path, and to pursue the glory we know is possible.
References
Blase,
J., & and Blase, J. Empowering Teachers.
Press, 2001.
Lambert, L. (1995). Toward a Theory of Constructivist Leadership. In L. Lambert, D.
Walker,
D. Zimmermann, J. Cooper, M. Lambert, M. Gardner, et al. The
Constructivist Leader.
(pp.28-51).
Owens, R.G. Organizational Behavior in Education.
2004.
Pellicer,
L. Caring Enough to Lead: Schools and the Sacred Trust.
Corwin, 1999.
Sergiovanni,
T. The
Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (4th
Ed.).
Allyn & Bacon, 2001.