Conflict resolution is a skill that everyone needs. It is also a skill that can always be improved. However, colleges and universities do not teach conflict resolution to new teachers. New teachers are woefully ill-prepared to talk with an angry parent or to resolve any but the simplest conflict. Because conflict resolution skills are considered soft skills, many educators and many people in general underestimate the need to develop these skills, scoff at the suggestion that they need to develop these skills, and reject all efforts to improve these skills. These same people most often exhibit the exact opposite skills that would result in conflict resolution--entering into debates and arguments when they should be looking for resoluton.
I suggest that there are Ten Truths about Conflict Resolution and that if a person begins by accepting these truths, then that person will move a giant step toward becoming a skilled in conflict resolution.
The Ten Truths about Conflict Resolution are:
1. It is better to talk face-to-face than to talk over the phone. It is better to talk on the phone than to communicate through an email. It is better to communicate through an email than not to communicate at all.
2. When communicating through email, keep the message short and stick to the facts.
3. Meeting with people face-to-face not only helps to resolve conflict but also helps to develop relationships important in resolving future conflicts.
4. Parents have a right to be upset, angry, or frustrated. They want what is best for their children and love their kids. Let an angry parent talk. Let the parent express the emotions for a few minutes. Not only will the parent unburden himself of the frustration, but you will also be able to identify the problem.
5. Find the facts. When an angry parent calls, the problem may be wrapped in many layers of emotion. Listen carefully for the real problem.
6. You are the professional, the calm voice in the meeting. Remain calm and listen carefully. Identify the issue and when you have the opportunity to speak, restate the problem as you understand it. This will let the other person know that you are listening.
7. Take notes. It will help you to stay focused.
8. Be proactive. If a teacher has had a problem with a student during the day, the teacher should call the parent at the earliest convenience. The parent is more likely to believe the first story that he/she hears, and if that happens to be the story that the student tells, it will be more difficult for the teacher to convince the parent otherwise.
9. Invite the parent or other person to provide a solution. Ask the other person what he or she would like to see happen to resolve the issue. This does not mean that what that person proposes will be the solution, but it again communicates that you are willing to listen and to work toward a resolution that both can agree to.
10. It is not about winning. It is about resolving the issue.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Protocols
I have been the principal of my high school only since July 1, 2009. In that short time, I have encountered more than a few instances where a parent, having a concern regarding the way a teacher or coach has handled a situation involving the parent's child, has gone directly to the superintendent or a school board member first, without ever addressing the issue with the teacher, with the coach, or with a building-level administrator. The worst part about this behavior is that the superintendent or school board member does not insist that the parent take the concern or complaint to the teacher or coach first. This is a violation of proper protocol.
The proper protocol for dealing with complaints, concerns, and issues involving the relationship between the student and the teacher or coach is to first contact the teacher or coach. If the complaint, concern, or issue is not resolved through this process, then the parent should contact a building-level administrator--the principal or assistant principal or perhaps a guidance counselor. If resolution is still not established, then the parent should contact the superintendent or assistant superintendent. If resolution is still not established, then the parent may take his or her concern to the school board.
It is not entirely the parents' fault that such a violation of protocol has become the culture of a school district. Any time that a school board member or a superintendent responds to a complaint, concern, or issue registered by a parent without redirecting the parent to contact the teacher or coach, the superintendent or school board member is guilty for creating such a culture. I will, however, forgive the superintendent or school board member, suggesting that these individuals have not considered the appropriate response to parents and are, therefore, not prepared properly. (However, as the top professionals of the district, they have a responsibility to be properly prepared.)
I suggest that when a superintendent or school board member has a parent address a complaint, concern, or issue to him or her directly before talking to the teacher or coach, the first question that the superintendent or school board member should ask is, "Have you talked directly to the teacher or coach about this concern?" It will be likely that the parent will say that he has not and the parent will provide a rather convincing argument as to why the parent believes talking to the teacher or coach will not resolve the problem. Whatever the parent's reason is for not talking to the teacher or coach, it is imperative that the superintendent or school board member insist that the parent do so, regardless. By not forcing the parent to confront the teacher or coach, the superintendent or school board member is enabling the parent in avoiding conflict resolution, is expressing a lack of trust in the teacher or coach in having the ability to resolve the conflict, and is breaking protocol. If a parent is absolutely unwilling to address the complaint, concern, or issue directly to the teacher or coach, then the superintendent or school board member should express that nothing can be done to resolve the conflict.
Stating that nothing can be done to resolve the conflict at this point may sound callous and counter-productive; however, what is actually being expressed is a strength of resolve to follow the proper protocol. Through following the proper protocol, the superintendent and school board are expressing a trust in the professionals that they have hired to do their jobs effectively and allowing these professionals the opportunity to meet the challenges of their jobs.
People do not learn to resolve conflict by avoiding conflict resolution. Teachers and coaches cannot become proficient at conflict resolution by having the superintendent or school board member passing judgment from on high.
My final point is that I have heard that parents have expressed that they take their concerns to the superintendent or school board member because they are "tired" of taking their concerns to the building and nothing ever being resolved. The irony here is that I am a new principal and these parents have not given me the opportunity to resolve their issues. Granted, there are times when issues are not resolved to the satisfaction of the parent--and in response to this I will suggest that the parent's satisfaction is unreasonable. But this does not provide a sound reason to violate protocol. To allow a parent to bypass protocol for any reason is to enable that parent to avoid learning to resolve conflict and to teach the student the method of avoiding conflict resolution. It is the teaching and reinforcement of a bad habit that has been translated in our society that everyone is entitled to get their way.
This has got to stop and the only way that it will stop is if everyone, from the teacher to the school board member, makes a commitment to follow the proper protocol and to practice proper conflict resolution.
The proper protocol for dealing with complaints, concerns, and issues involving the relationship between the student and the teacher or coach is to first contact the teacher or coach. If the complaint, concern, or issue is not resolved through this process, then the parent should contact a building-level administrator--the principal or assistant principal or perhaps a guidance counselor. If resolution is still not established, then the parent should contact the superintendent or assistant superintendent. If resolution is still not established, then the parent may take his or her concern to the school board.
It is not entirely the parents' fault that such a violation of protocol has become the culture of a school district. Any time that a school board member or a superintendent responds to a complaint, concern, or issue registered by a parent without redirecting the parent to contact the teacher or coach, the superintendent or school board member is guilty for creating such a culture. I will, however, forgive the superintendent or school board member, suggesting that these individuals have not considered the appropriate response to parents and are, therefore, not prepared properly. (However, as the top professionals of the district, they have a responsibility to be properly prepared.)
I suggest that when a superintendent or school board member has a parent address a complaint, concern, or issue to him or her directly before talking to the teacher or coach, the first question that the superintendent or school board member should ask is, "Have you talked directly to the teacher or coach about this concern?" It will be likely that the parent will say that he has not and the parent will provide a rather convincing argument as to why the parent believes talking to the teacher or coach will not resolve the problem. Whatever the parent's reason is for not talking to the teacher or coach, it is imperative that the superintendent or school board member insist that the parent do so, regardless. By not forcing the parent to confront the teacher or coach, the superintendent or school board member is enabling the parent in avoiding conflict resolution, is expressing a lack of trust in the teacher or coach in having the ability to resolve the conflict, and is breaking protocol. If a parent is absolutely unwilling to address the complaint, concern, or issue directly to the teacher or coach, then the superintendent or school board member should express that nothing can be done to resolve the conflict.
Stating that nothing can be done to resolve the conflict at this point may sound callous and counter-productive; however, what is actually being expressed is a strength of resolve to follow the proper protocol. Through following the proper protocol, the superintendent and school board are expressing a trust in the professionals that they have hired to do their jobs effectively and allowing these professionals the opportunity to meet the challenges of their jobs.
People do not learn to resolve conflict by avoiding conflict resolution. Teachers and coaches cannot become proficient at conflict resolution by having the superintendent or school board member passing judgment from on high.
My final point is that I have heard that parents have expressed that they take their concerns to the superintendent or school board member because they are "tired" of taking their concerns to the building and nothing ever being resolved. The irony here is that I am a new principal and these parents have not given me the opportunity to resolve their issues. Granted, there are times when issues are not resolved to the satisfaction of the parent--and in response to this I will suggest that the parent's satisfaction is unreasonable. But this does not provide a sound reason to violate protocol. To allow a parent to bypass protocol for any reason is to enable that parent to avoid learning to resolve conflict and to teach the student the method of avoiding conflict resolution. It is the teaching and reinforcement of a bad habit that has been translated in our society that everyone is entitled to get their way.
This has got to stop and the only way that it will stop is if everyone, from the teacher to the school board member, makes a commitment to follow the proper protocol and to practice proper conflict resolution.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Do Whatever Is Needed to Help Students Succeed
I was recently at the Indiana Association of School Principal's fall conference. One of the keynote speakers was the author of If You Don't Feed the Teachers, They Will Eat the Students. The statement that rang truest with me was that we need to do whatever we can to help students succeed. Schools can have whatever mission statements and vision statements they have. But the motto of all teachers should be that statement.
So, what does this mean?
Success means something different to each person, without a doubt. Still, we can all agree that the opposite of success is failure. Therefore, any student earning an F in any course as a final grade has not succeeded. The question, at that point, is whether the teacher, the counselor, the administrator, or anyone else has done whatever was needed to help the student succeed.
When a student fails a class, it is usually because the student did not complete the homework assignments. This usually affords teachers an opportunity to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the student's failure, pointing out that the student had not learned to be responsible. But a very important reality of a student failing because he did not do his homework is that, often the teacher allowed the student not to do his homework. What did the teacher or anyone else in the school do to encourage or force the student to do his homework? Were there any calls to the parents? Were there any meetings with the parents and the student and the teacher and the counselor or the administrator? Was the student assigned any detentions for not doing his work? Was the student allowed to play sports in spite of not doing his homework? Was the student allowed to participate in any extra-curricular activities in spite of not having done his homework?
We need to do whatever is needed to help students succeed. If we are not, then we are allowing students to fail, which means we are allowing them not to learn. That is educational malpractice.
So, what does this mean?
Success means something different to each person, without a doubt. Still, we can all agree that the opposite of success is failure. Therefore, any student earning an F in any course as a final grade has not succeeded. The question, at that point, is whether the teacher, the counselor, the administrator, or anyone else has done whatever was needed to help the student succeed.
When a student fails a class, it is usually because the student did not complete the homework assignments. This usually affords teachers an opportunity to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the student's failure, pointing out that the student had not learned to be responsible. But a very important reality of a student failing because he did not do his homework is that, often the teacher allowed the student not to do his homework. What did the teacher or anyone else in the school do to encourage or force the student to do his homework? Were there any calls to the parents? Were there any meetings with the parents and the student and the teacher and the counselor or the administrator? Was the student assigned any detentions for not doing his work? Was the student allowed to play sports in spite of not doing his homework? Was the student allowed to participate in any extra-curricular activities in spite of not having done his homework?
We need to do whatever is needed to help students succeed. If we are not, then we are allowing students to fail, which means we are allowing them not to learn. That is educational malpractice.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Teaching to the Test
Since standards became conspicuous (I believe we always had standards; we just were not as consciously aware of them as we pretend to be today.), I have heard many teachers complain that they are being forced to teach to the test. Those who advocate a focus on standards often provide the caveat that they are not advocating teaching to the test. The Department of Education in Indiana goes to great lengths to make it known that teachers are not to be teaching to the test. But teaching to the test is exactly what a good teacher does at all times.
Consider the process of designing a lesson. First, a good teacher determines what it is that students are expected to learn. Then, the teacher determines how students will show that they have met the expectations. Only then does the teacher decide the activities, strategies, and methods used to meet the expectations. In other words, after deciding what will be on the test and the type of assessment that students will complete, the teacher then teaches to the test.
Teaching to the test is what a good teacher does.
Consider the process of designing a lesson. First, a good teacher determines what it is that students are expected to learn. Then, the teacher determines how students will show that they have met the expectations. Only then does the teacher decide the activities, strategies, and methods used to meet the expectations. In other words, after deciding what will be on the test and the type of assessment that students will complete, the teacher then teaches to the test.
Teaching to the test is what a good teacher does.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Defining Dropout
The latest educational cause that has educators and community leaders and business people and politicians linking hands and singing together is reducing the number of high school dropouts. It is good that everyone wants to get behind this noble cause. However, in Indiana the definition of a high school dropout may actually be a barrier to reducing the number of dropouts. Consider the following scenarios:
In the second scenario the GED is good enough to allow a student to enter community college or other universities, but is considered a failure by Indiana legislative standards.
Considering the third scenario, it does not follow that a student who is accepted by a university should be considered a dropout.
In the last scenario, it could be argued that the students do not earn a diploma, but these students finish four or more years of high school. This cannot be called dropping out by any standard.
When one drops out, one does not continue working toward the goal. To dropout means to quit, to give up, to stop working toward the goal.
If the State of Indiana is serious about working to reduce the number of dropouts, the first step is to change the definition of dropout. I do not suggest this as an easy way to increase the number of students being successful, but as a means of providing options for students who need options. For one reason that students dropout is that they feel they have no other option. As we are for charter schools to provide people with choice, we should be for changing the definition of dropout, to provide choice and to support students in earning the high school diploma.
- A student earns his high school diploma but takes five or six years to do so.
- A student leaves the public high school and earns his GED.
- A student forgoes finishing high school because she has been accepted to a prestigious college where she begins working on her bachelor's degree. (Yes, this really happens.)
- A student, because of disabilities, is unable to meet the requirements for a general diploma but completes four or more years of high school, earning what is called a certificate of attendance.
In the second scenario the GED is good enough to allow a student to enter community college or other universities, but is considered a failure by Indiana legislative standards.
Considering the third scenario, it does not follow that a student who is accepted by a university should be considered a dropout.
In the last scenario, it could be argued that the students do not earn a diploma, but these students finish four or more years of high school. This cannot be called dropping out by any standard.
When one drops out, one does not continue working toward the goal. To dropout means to quit, to give up, to stop working toward the goal.
If the State of Indiana is serious about working to reduce the number of dropouts, the first step is to change the definition of dropout. I do not suggest this as an easy way to increase the number of students being successful, but as a means of providing options for students who need options. For one reason that students dropout is that they feel they have no other option. As we are for charter schools to provide people with choice, we should be for changing the definition of dropout, to provide choice and to support students in earning the high school diploma.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The President's Speech
President Obama plans to address the students of the United States on Tuesday, September 8th with a message stressing the importance of graduating from high school. The entire speech has been made available for everyone to read.What should never have surprised me is the fact that many people are demanding that schools not allow the speech to be heard or seen in the schools and that students not be "exposed" to the President's message. One could argue that regardless of the President's party affiliation or stance regarding such issues as health care or war, all Americans owe the President the respect of hearing his messages. But that is not the position I want to take. My point is that it is wrong to pass judgment on any text without first having read or heard the message. What many people are advocating is contrary to the development of reasoning and critical thinking, which should be the primary goal of schools.
Understand, schools are neither Democratic or Republican. Schools are non-denominational with regard to religion. Schools are neither liberal or conservative. Schools must be neutral. By showing the President's speech, a school is not saying that it supports the President's position on health care or on the war in Iraq. The school is allowing a text to be presented so that the students may consider the text and weigh it against what they already know or what they thought they knew. Students may also get to hear opposing views so that they may learn to appreciate the varying perspectives that exist regarding an issue. This is key to critical thinking.
Preventing students from hearing a speech or from reading a text because of the adults' prejudices is a violation against the educative process. Such practice also stresses that intolerance is preferred to tolerance; is it any wonder that prejudice, racism, and hatred still exists in America?
The President's message is that students should stay in school and get their diploma. I've heard self-proclaimed conservatives on the television state that they are opposed to President Obama's views and do not want their children to hear his speech. This can only be interpreted that such conservatives do not want children to stay in school and believe that it is not important for students to earn their high school diploma. Okay, I'm sure that is not their position, but isn't that what it sounds like?
Don't make an uneducated decision. Suspend judgment until you have the facts. You may arrive at the same conclusion, but you will have done so intelligently.
To learn more about President Obama's address to our nations children, go to http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html.
Understand, schools are neither Democratic or Republican. Schools are non-denominational with regard to religion. Schools are neither liberal or conservative. Schools must be neutral. By showing the President's speech, a school is not saying that it supports the President's position on health care or on the war in Iraq. The school is allowing a text to be presented so that the students may consider the text and weigh it against what they already know or what they thought they knew. Students may also get to hear opposing views so that they may learn to appreciate the varying perspectives that exist regarding an issue. This is key to critical thinking.
Preventing students from hearing a speech or from reading a text because of the adults' prejudices is a violation against the educative process. Such practice also stresses that intolerance is preferred to tolerance; is it any wonder that prejudice, racism, and hatred still exists in America?
The President's message is that students should stay in school and get their diploma. I've heard self-proclaimed conservatives on the television state that they are opposed to President Obama's views and do not want their children to hear his speech. This can only be interpreted that such conservatives do not want children to stay in school and believe that it is not important for students to earn their high school diploma. Okay, I'm sure that is not their position, but isn't that what it sounds like?
Don't make an uneducated decision. Suspend judgment until you have the facts. You may arrive at the same conclusion, but you will have done so intelligently.
To learn more about President Obama's address to our nations children, go to http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html.
Monday, July 27, 2009
100% Together
One of the greatest frustrations for a teacher or administrator is to be working toward the enforcement of a school rule or policy or toward the achievement of the school's goals and objectives and to realize that other faculty members are not. School dress code may prohibit a student from wearing a t-shirt that advertises alcoholic beverages. Still, a student wearing such a shirt may get to third, fourth, or even sixth or seventh period before anyone takes issue and confronts the student. Is it any wonder that the student responds by saying nobody else said anything to him, suggesting that it was okay to wear the shirt?
The examples abound. One school decides to try a sustained silent reading program, having everyone reading for twenty minutes of every day. This goes over well in several classes, but a few teachers don't like the idea and communicate indifference through their body language and their actions. Students in their classes recognize that the teacher does not support the program; therefore, they don't take it seriously. Consequently, the program fails to meet its expectations. The non-compliant teacher is vindicated. But the reality is that the program was never fully implemented; therefore, there was no genuine failure in the program, only a failure in getting 100% commitment from the faculty.
Arguments are made consistently against any and all educational reform efforts and new practices, with the primary argument being that a school can never get 100% of the teachers committed to the new practice. But the bottom line is that these same teachers were hired to work as a team with the existing faculty and with the faculty that was hired after them. A personal and conscious decision not to comply with an established school policy or practice is a violation of the trust of the contract that the teacher entered into with the school. And this is grounds for dismissal.
This is not to say that one cannot disagree. Everyone should be allowed a time and opportunity to express his or her sentiments regarding a proposed policy or practice. Naturally, it would be in that person's better interest to provide the research that supports the opposing view; when opinions are presented without support, they are easily dismissed. Regardless, when the decision is then made regarding the policy or practice, the teacher or administrator has no other recourse than to be in 100% support of the implementation of the policy or practice.
Emerson stated that "Conformity is the hobgoblin of little minds" and that is true. And to some extent it is appropriate for a system to experience brief bursts of nonconformity. But when it comes to the system making a commitment to a practice or policy that has been well researched, well discussed, and well considered, it is in the better interest that everyone commit to the success of the policy or practice. There are times when conformity can be the better choice.
The examples abound. One school decides to try a sustained silent reading program, having everyone reading for twenty minutes of every day. This goes over well in several classes, but a few teachers don't like the idea and communicate indifference through their body language and their actions. Students in their classes recognize that the teacher does not support the program; therefore, they don't take it seriously. Consequently, the program fails to meet its expectations. The non-compliant teacher is vindicated. But the reality is that the program was never fully implemented; therefore, there was no genuine failure in the program, only a failure in getting 100% commitment from the faculty.
Arguments are made consistently against any and all educational reform efforts and new practices, with the primary argument being that a school can never get 100% of the teachers committed to the new practice. But the bottom line is that these same teachers were hired to work as a team with the existing faculty and with the faculty that was hired after them. A personal and conscious decision not to comply with an established school policy or practice is a violation of the trust of the contract that the teacher entered into with the school. And this is grounds for dismissal.
This is not to say that one cannot disagree. Everyone should be allowed a time and opportunity to express his or her sentiments regarding a proposed policy or practice. Naturally, it would be in that person's better interest to provide the research that supports the opposing view; when opinions are presented without support, they are easily dismissed. Regardless, when the decision is then made regarding the policy or practice, the teacher or administrator has no other recourse than to be in 100% support of the implementation of the policy or practice.
Emerson stated that "Conformity is the hobgoblin of little minds" and that is true. And to some extent it is appropriate for a system to experience brief bursts of nonconformity. But when it comes to the system making a commitment to a practice or policy that has been well researched, well discussed, and well considered, it is in the better interest that everyone commit to the success of the policy or practice. There are times when conformity can be the better choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)