Staff Representative / Communications
Staff Representative / Communications
Has anyone ever been a part of a school where the Staff Representative role was used optimally? What did it look like? How did it go? Did it help to create a positive atmosphere in the school?
Response
No, in the few times there has been some form of faculty rep on an ownership board/council, its always been a 'seen and not heard' type of arrangement where at best the faculty rep gets one vote out of numerous voting members mostly parents. In others its been a token position with no real power or authority.
Re: Staff Representative / Communications
We had a faculty rep at a previous school whose suggestions sometimes impacted policy, but when the new Head arrived that changed completely and their advice was largely ignored and it was clear the new Head saw it as undeserved criticism when the faculty rep spoke out against new policies. Where I'm now we don't have a faculty rep but teachers are able and sometimes explicitly asked to voice their opinion and they do impact policy.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Staff Representative / Communications
My second school had a good system where teachers would choose three teachers to represent them. Those representatives would actively collect teachers' opinions/concerns and bring those to leadership to discuss them. Worked well - leadership would take it seriously most of the time, especially where it wouldn't require a lot of extra money.
-
buffalofan
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Re: Staff Representative / Communications
Heliotrope wrote:
> Worked well - leadership would take it seriously most of the time,
> especially where it wouldn't require a lot of extra money.
Ah yes. Faculty voices will be heard and considered, unless it involves money. If it involves money, then you are being selfish or not a "team player". Pretty much the MO of most schools.
> Worked well - leadership would take it seriously most of the time,
> especially where it wouldn't require a lot of extra money.
Ah yes. Faculty voices will be heard and considered, unless it involves money. If it involves money, then you are being selfish or not a "team player". Pretty much the MO of most schools.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Staff Representative / Communications
buffalofan wrote:
> Ah yes. Faculty voices will be heard and considered, unless it involves money.
Yep!
The most pressing issues at the time were ones that didn't cost much (or anything) though.
Things like scheduling that didn't make sense (resulting in fewer preps), teachers having to stay on campus until 4:30 without any need for it, the option to book our own flights with the same budget, some classroom reshuffling, firing the lady in charge of purchasing because she was corrupt (which saved the school money because they were overpaying), doing away with certain unnecessary meetings (50% of all meetings)), some restructuring of lower leadership and pastoral roles. Those were all fixed/addressed at the request of the teacher representatives.
Also some requests that did cost extra money were honored, like changing to a better healthcare insurance provider.
The whole 'team player' argument was never used - they would just tell us that the budget wouldn't allow it.
And to be fair, there are some admins that will not even consider anything teachers ask for -even if it doesn't cost anything-, because they somehow feel that if a teacher brings up a suggestion to change anything it is meant as criticism, and if they grant it that means admitting they didn't do a good job themselves. Or they do grant it but present it as their own idea.
The best admins are the ones that realize they're not perfect, welcome suggestions, give credit to others, and admit mistakes.
> Ah yes. Faculty voices will be heard and considered, unless it involves money.
Yep!
The most pressing issues at the time were ones that didn't cost much (or anything) though.
Things like scheduling that didn't make sense (resulting in fewer preps), teachers having to stay on campus until 4:30 without any need for it, the option to book our own flights with the same budget, some classroom reshuffling, firing the lady in charge of purchasing because she was corrupt (which saved the school money because they were overpaying), doing away with certain unnecessary meetings (50% of all meetings)), some restructuring of lower leadership and pastoral roles. Those were all fixed/addressed at the request of the teacher representatives.
Also some requests that did cost extra money were honored, like changing to a better healthcare insurance provider.
The whole 'team player' argument was never used - they would just tell us that the budget wouldn't allow it.
And to be fair, there are some admins that will not even consider anything teachers ask for -even if it doesn't cost anything-, because they somehow feel that if a teacher brings up a suggestion to change anything it is meant as criticism, and if they grant it that means admitting they didn't do a good job themselves. Or they do grant it but present it as their own idea.
The best admins are the ones that realize they're not perfect, welcome suggestions, give credit to others, and admit mistakes.
Discussion
Concur with @buffalofan, most of the issues and concerns that really matter to ITs are ones that cost coin. All too often leaders take any conversation that appears suggestive as criticism. Even the good leaders (they do exist) see it as criticism, constructive criticism or non-personal criticism but still criticism, because if we are being honest thats what it is. The current system, practice, idea, thing is less effective or efficient than the system, practice, idea, thing I have in mind, which when you collapse down to its salient qualities is a critique, the root of all criticism.Thats what edus do we attempt to transfer KSAs and we critique that process and assign cause and effect (hopefully with a valid identification process/system), but thats what edus do.
Re: Discussion
PsyGuy wrote:
> Even the good leaders (they do exist)
> see it as criticism, constructive criticism or non-personal criticism but
> still criticism, because if we are being honest thats what it is. The
> current system, practice, idea, thing is less effective or efficient than
> the system, practice, idea, thing I have in mind, which when you collapse
> down to its salient qualities is a critique, the root of all
> criticism.
Good management though should always be open to that. The best leaders I've seen (in and out of education) are the ones who know they need someone on their shoulder to challenge them, because that way they avoid making bad decisions (bearing in mind that good decisions are not always popular decisions.)
The problem in education in particular is that Principals aren't necessarily trained in management; and that senior management behaviour tends to reflect the types of senior management they themselves have seen. That means there are too many for whom 'my way or the highway' is their mantra, and while that is sometimes necessary it can frequently be detrimental to the school especially where management see this as being 'good' or - worse still - 'strong' leadership. It's not really leadership then - it's a dictatorship.
> Even the good leaders (they do exist)
> see it as criticism, constructive criticism or non-personal criticism but
> still criticism, because if we are being honest thats what it is. The
> current system, practice, idea, thing is less effective or efficient than
> the system, practice, idea, thing I have in mind, which when you collapse
> down to its salient qualities is a critique, the root of all
> criticism.
Good management though should always be open to that. The best leaders I've seen (in and out of education) are the ones who know they need someone on their shoulder to challenge them, because that way they avoid making bad decisions (bearing in mind that good decisions are not always popular decisions.)
The problem in education in particular is that Principals aren't necessarily trained in management; and that senior management behaviour tends to reflect the types of senior management they themselves have seen. That means there are too many for whom 'my way or the highway' is their mantra, and while that is sometimes necessary it can frequently be detrimental to the school especially where management see this as being 'good' or - worse still - 'strong' leadership. It's not really leadership then - it's a dictatorship.
Reply
@expatscot
Thats your definition of good leadership, thats not everyones and its not what all ownership is looking for. There are leaders on and off circuit that specifically have niche skill sets like walking into an IS and gutting the faculty. From some POVs thats "good" leadership.
Well they are trained in management its just like everything else though, thats too little jam smeared over too much bread. Ed/Ld programs cant include everything youd want and need in so far of academics in edu and T&L and be even a generalized MBA program. What happens is you get more of some and less of other disciplines but its all rather superficial. Ive heard edu leadership professors in programs blink and advised to fix those deficiencies by hiring good back office staff to do the business, HR, etc. tasks and focus on the communication, sales/marketing/advertising, and academics, because thats what parents see and theyre the customer.
How is that any different than the rest of edu prep, the vast majority of ITs teach the way they were taught as students or the way they were taught to teach, the rest they got from mimicking other DTs/ITs.
Whats wrong with dictatorships? Lots of organizations (militarys for example) are very effectively run autocratically or as dictatorships. Many professional soldiers are still professionals despite taking, following, and executing orders. Leaders need to say do this, and have it done, and it doesnt matter the field its in whether a military organization, the director directing the cast of a film production of a classroom. It shouldnt even be that alien to an IT, we do the same with students all the time. From the leadership perspective its not autocratic leadership styles thats the issue, its ITs who want more autonomy than leadership and by extension what ownership is comfortable with, thats a 'you' problem, not a 'them' problem.
Thats your definition of good leadership, thats not everyones and its not what all ownership is looking for. There are leaders on and off circuit that specifically have niche skill sets like walking into an IS and gutting the faculty. From some POVs thats "good" leadership.
Well they are trained in management its just like everything else though, thats too little jam smeared over too much bread. Ed/Ld programs cant include everything youd want and need in so far of academics in edu and T&L and be even a generalized MBA program. What happens is you get more of some and less of other disciplines but its all rather superficial. Ive heard edu leadership professors in programs blink and advised to fix those deficiencies by hiring good back office staff to do the business, HR, etc. tasks and focus on the communication, sales/marketing/advertising, and academics, because thats what parents see and theyre the customer.
How is that any different than the rest of edu prep, the vast majority of ITs teach the way they were taught as students or the way they were taught to teach, the rest they got from mimicking other DTs/ITs.
Whats wrong with dictatorships? Lots of organizations (militarys for example) are very effectively run autocratically or as dictatorships. Many professional soldiers are still professionals despite taking, following, and executing orders. Leaders need to say do this, and have it done, and it doesnt matter the field its in whether a military organization, the director directing the cast of a film production of a classroom. It shouldnt even be that alien to an IT, we do the same with students all the time. From the leadership perspective its not autocratic leadership styles thats the issue, its ITs who want more autonomy than leadership and by extension what ownership is comfortable with, thats a 'you' problem, not a 'them' problem.
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
>
> Whats wrong with dictatorships? Lots of organizations (militarys for
> example) are very effectively run autocratically or as dictatorships. Many
> professional soldiers are still professionals despite taking, following,
> and executing orders. Leaders need to say do this, and have it done, and it
> doesnt matter the field its in whether a military organization, the
> director directing the cast of a film production of a classroom. It
> shouldnt even be that alien to an IT, we do the same with students all the
> time. From the leadership perspective its not autocratic leadership styles
> thats the issue, its ITs who want more autonomy than leadership and by
> extension what ownership is comfortable with, thats a 'you' problem, not a
> 'them' problem.
The problem with dictatorships is that they rely on having people in place who are either happy to be subordinate and do what they are told, or who are kept happy with sufficient scraps that they don't intervene (thinking here of the proles in '1984'). If either of those don't happen then the only other option is brainwashing (see North Korea).
I disagree about the definition of the leader though. A leader needs to have a clear vision of what they want done, but they need to be open to different roads to doing it. Sometimes, the dictator role is appropriate - if something needs done urgently, such as pruning a staff body, or in an emergency. Most of the time, though, is it not better to get what you want done in a way which keeps the majority happy, even if it's not your idea? If, as teachers, we behaved in an autocratic, not-listening way, then we'd never actually improve our teaching skills because we wouldn't be open to other ideas as to how to improve. It's not unrealistic to expect our leadership to do the same.
>
> Whats wrong with dictatorships? Lots of organizations (militarys for
> example) are very effectively run autocratically or as dictatorships. Many
> professional soldiers are still professionals despite taking, following,
> and executing orders. Leaders need to say do this, and have it done, and it
> doesnt matter the field its in whether a military organization, the
> director directing the cast of a film production of a classroom. It
> shouldnt even be that alien to an IT, we do the same with students all the
> time. From the leadership perspective its not autocratic leadership styles
> thats the issue, its ITs who want more autonomy than leadership and by
> extension what ownership is comfortable with, thats a 'you' problem, not a
> 'them' problem.
The problem with dictatorships is that they rely on having people in place who are either happy to be subordinate and do what they are told, or who are kept happy with sufficient scraps that they don't intervene (thinking here of the proles in '1984'). If either of those don't happen then the only other option is brainwashing (see North Korea).
I disagree about the definition of the leader though. A leader needs to have a clear vision of what they want done, but they need to be open to different roads to doing it. Sometimes, the dictator role is appropriate - if something needs done urgently, such as pruning a staff body, or in an emergency. Most of the time, though, is it not better to get what you want done in a way which keeps the majority happy, even if it's not your idea? If, as teachers, we behaved in an autocratic, not-listening way, then we'd never actually improve our teaching skills because we wouldn't be open to other ideas as to how to improve. It's not unrealistic to expect our leadership to do the same.
Reply
@expatscot
Maybe back once upon a time, when the DT/IT was only a handful of a communities formerly and higher educated members, when such a position carried with it a much greater degree of respect and actual admiration. Not anymore, now DTs//ITs are the help, servants compensated for performing a task, they arent rare or valued specialists of esoteric KSA's to be heard and heeded to. The house master and the task masker want execution of their plan and their ideas, they dont want to hear what the servant thinks, feels or believes. The bride wants the cake she wants, she isnt looking so much for the bakers input. When the bakery is looking for a baker they want someone who is going to be on time, work hard, long and well, not be a nuisance or annoy the other staff, follow the recipe and dont make mistakes, and when you do make mistakes make cheap ones.
No, thats not better, for a number of reasons but primarily because happiness and contentment in the DS/IS environment is not self sustaining, and secondly its a fools errand thinking that even keeping the majority happy and content at the cost of the minority is a sound strategy. Id rather have 95%+ of the faculty rate leadership and the work environment a 5 (on a scale of 1 to 10 rather than 60% rate an 8 and the remaining 40% rate a 2 (or even 75%:25%, for that matter). Leadership is always about managing the discontent and aggrieved, putting out fires, pivoting when you have to, staying firm in the face of adversity, and knowing the difference aof which situation youre in and when youre in it. The challenge isnt making the unhappy happy or making the unhappy less unhappy, its keeping them quiet and executing on task. Most leaders in my experience really dont care about staff, they just want the machine to run with as few interruptions and headache as possible. Youre never going to make everyone happy all the time, and I dont hear you advocating for that as a possibility at all, but general or majority contentment is just as much an illusion, everything is always fine, until it isnt.
96% of the problems are caused by 4% of the minority (I made that up, but Im making a point not citing data for reference). I hate using politics as an example, but from the US to the UK and all places beyond and in-between, it really counts all for nothing the 98% of the job that whatever legislative or parliamentary leader did well when its the 2% of the job that keeps you from doing the other 98% and that 2% is all anyone will remember and its what they will judge you by for time immemorial. Its not keeping faculty happy or content that keeps leaders up at night (its the teething 2 year old in the nursery), but what the damage and slow down is going to be when the unhappy make noise or worse make moves. They just want to keep the machine running, with as little work and attention as possible.
The image of continuing development and growth is great for the textbooks and the Socratic classroom but its really disconnected from the cold practice of reality. As edus, DTs/ITs we behave and practice our craft using autocratic methods all the time, most of the time, the vast majority of the time. Isnt that the whole point of the DTs/ITs job in the first place to keep the classroom from becoming a rendition of Lord of the Flies. Every lesson plan I review and look at is 90% plus dictation and prescription, and right at the top in blocked off text under objectives "the student will", and you know how many times one of those was worded to the effect of "consult with the students on what they would like to learn, how they would like to learn it, how they would like to determine how well they learned it, how much fun they would like to have in the process, and also what will make them happy".
Ive gotten those in the past and when I do I send them back to the campus leaders designee with a note to resubmit. I already know what the students want, the boys want to play video games and the girls want to be on social media. You want chaos, anarchy, more drama in your life ask 11 year olds to contribute to lesson design and planning. We need ITs like that though because the mocking makes the other mediocre ITs look better in comparison. Nothing is an easier value add to performance appraisals than a recent ITs dumpster fire/train wreck of a lesson gone horribly astray. A rising tide really does raise all ships, except the ones that sink.
Lastly, why would leaders need to listen to other edus they already know everything. I know that sounds flippant but what is there really to learn. Edu as a science and a field is done. This isnt physics where theres unanswered questions, or mysteries to be discovered. Edu is alchemy, the secrets are known, its just parsing them out in such a way, at such a rate to keep the coin moving to the consultants. Thats the magic, give the entry level practitioners just enough to keep their head above water in water they can touch the bottom, and increase the depth while parsing out little tidbits of observation cloaked as experience with slivers of technique that can be packaged as innovative, and research driven. Theres nothing new, the state of the art in T&L is just a Canva presentation of social science from 50's and 60's, the only thing new is the technology. Canva is cooler than PowerPoint, but its still just Piaget, Erickson, and Vygotsky, and their ilk, and their progeny. Its all just recycled Pop.Ed that gets shelved until the next iteration of packaging, marketing and sales. Even direct teaching is making a resurgence with the gaining popularity of AI. Its not about knowing something anymore its about knowing something when you need to know it and knowing when that moment is, and direct teach has efficiency going for it (at the cost of efficacy). Which is just throwing a curtain over what the real future step is, we dont need DTs/ITs to teach the students anymore, we need monitor to watch the students while the AI teaches the students. AI is new, what the AI will be doing will not be, and nothing every edu is doing in any classroom or learning environment is novel enough to not have already been done. The only thing new is the bad ideas of times past that someone rescued from the bin and thought "maybe time to give this a try".
Dont confuse new with forgotten.
TLDR: No.
Maybe back once upon a time, when the DT/IT was only a handful of a communities formerly and higher educated members, when such a position carried with it a much greater degree of respect and actual admiration. Not anymore, now DTs//ITs are the help, servants compensated for performing a task, they arent rare or valued specialists of esoteric KSA's to be heard and heeded to. The house master and the task masker want execution of their plan and their ideas, they dont want to hear what the servant thinks, feels or believes. The bride wants the cake she wants, she isnt looking so much for the bakers input. When the bakery is looking for a baker they want someone who is going to be on time, work hard, long and well, not be a nuisance or annoy the other staff, follow the recipe and dont make mistakes, and when you do make mistakes make cheap ones.
No, thats not better, for a number of reasons but primarily because happiness and contentment in the DS/IS environment is not self sustaining, and secondly its a fools errand thinking that even keeping the majority happy and content at the cost of the minority is a sound strategy. Id rather have 95%+ of the faculty rate leadership and the work environment a 5 (on a scale of 1 to 10 rather than 60% rate an 8 and the remaining 40% rate a 2 (or even 75%:25%, for that matter). Leadership is always about managing the discontent and aggrieved, putting out fires, pivoting when you have to, staying firm in the face of adversity, and knowing the difference aof which situation youre in and when youre in it. The challenge isnt making the unhappy happy or making the unhappy less unhappy, its keeping them quiet and executing on task. Most leaders in my experience really dont care about staff, they just want the machine to run with as few interruptions and headache as possible. Youre never going to make everyone happy all the time, and I dont hear you advocating for that as a possibility at all, but general or majority contentment is just as much an illusion, everything is always fine, until it isnt.
96% of the problems are caused by 4% of the minority (I made that up, but Im making a point not citing data for reference). I hate using politics as an example, but from the US to the UK and all places beyond and in-between, it really counts all for nothing the 98% of the job that whatever legislative or parliamentary leader did well when its the 2% of the job that keeps you from doing the other 98% and that 2% is all anyone will remember and its what they will judge you by for time immemorial. Its not keeping faculty happy or content that keeps leaders up at night (its the teething 2 year old in the nursery), but what the damage and slow down is going to be when the unhappy make noise or worse make moves. They just want to keep the machine running, with as little work and attention as possible.
The image of continuing development and growth is great for the textbooks and the Socratic classroom but its really disconnected from the cold practice of reality. As edus, DTs/ITs we behave and practice our craft using autocratic methods all the time, most of the time, the vast majority of the time. Isnt that the whole point of the DTs/ITs job in the first place to keep the classroom from becoming a rendition of Lord of the Flies. Every lesson plan I review and look at is 90% plus dictation and prescription, and right at the top in blocked off text under objectives "the student will", and you know how many times one of those was worded to the effect of "consult with the students on what they would like to learn, how they would like to learn it, how they would like to determine how well they learned it, how much fun they would like to have in the process, and also what will make them happy".
Ive gotten those in the past and when I do I send them back to the campus leaders designee with a note to resubmit. I already know what the students want, the boys want to play video games and the girls want to be on social media. You want chaos, anarchy, more drama in your life ask 11 year olds to contribute to lesson design and planning. We need ITs like that though because the mocking makes the other mediocre ITs look better in comparison. Nothing is an easier value add to performance appraisals than a recent ITs dumpster fire/train wreck of a lesson gone horribly astray. A rising tide really does raise all ships, except the ones that sink.
Lastly, why would leaders need to listen to other edus they already know everything. I know that sounds flippant but what is there really to learn. Edu as a science and a field is done. This isnt physics where theres unanswered questions, or mysteries to be discovered. Edu is alchemy, the secrets are known, its just parsing them out in such a way, at such a rate to keep the coin moving to the consultants. Thats the magic, give the entry level practitioners just enough to keep their head above water in water they can touch the bottom, and increase the depth while parsing out little tidbits of observation cloaked as experience with slivers of technique that can be packaged as innovative, and research driven. Theres nothing new, the state of the art in T&L is just a Canva presentation of social science from 50's and 60's, the only thing new is the technology. Canva is cooler than PowerPoint, but its still just Piaget, Erickson, and Vygotsky, and their ilk, and their progeny. Its all just recycled Pop.Ed that gets shelved until the next iteration of packaging, marketing and sales. Even direct teaching is making a resurgence with the gaining popularity of AI. Its not about knowing something anymore its about knowing something when you need to know it and knowing when that moment is, and direct teach has efficiency going for it (at the cost of efficacy). Which is just throwing a curtain over what the real future step is, we dont need DTs/ITs to teach the students anymore, we need monitor to watch the students while the AI teaches the students. AI is new, what the AI will be doing will not be, and nothing every edu is doing in any classroom or learning environment is novel enough to not have already been done. The only thing new is the bad ideas of times past that someone rescued from the bin and thought "maybe time to give this a try".
Dont confuse new with forgotten.
TLDR: No.
Re: Staff Representative / Communications
The Staff Representative actively communicates with their colleagues to gather feedback, concerns, and suggestions. They maintain an open line of communication with both staff and administration to ensure that issues are addressed promptly and effectively.