Culture and Ethics

When Data Calls for Change
Actual courses of action taken by this principal
The board chairperson and Mrs. Counts chose to negotiate with DESE over the use of the literacy review. Mrs. Counts and district leadership met four times with the head DESE reviewer and finally negotiated that the team would review the entire school and then call in all current school-wide review data. They would evaluate our review processes against their findings.
Mrs. Counts thought this was a brilliant way of handling the situation. She believed she could protect the teachers – and she was right but for the wrong reasons.
The DESE team smelt a problem after the first morning in the school and by the end of three days the head reviewer was itching to cite the review data. The school’s data confirmed everything that the team had identified. The fact that the review processes were rigorous enabled the DESE team to feel confident that the senior leadership team, with the full support of the board, could bring about the required changes.
At the feedback meeting the board was told that Mrs. Counts would have to address three competency issues – Nancy was one of the three. The school was close to being given a discretionary review. Interestingly the teacher representative on the board was Nancy and she elected not to come to the feedback.
After DESE put all the challenges on the table, the board chairperson and Mrs. Counts argued for a different wording of the report. They believed a poor report that made these points would cause a mass exodus of students from the school.
The DESE team agreed to revisit the wording of the report so that it was less judgmental sounding. They did this because they had confidence in the senior leadership team and Mrs. Counts bringing about the required change. Mrs. Counts believed that by protecting teachers with a re-worded report her faculty would be better equipped to move forward, and that change would make it easier to drive.
Well, she was wrong on every count.
Continued resistance
For the next two years Mrs. Counts experienced some of the most difficult times of her career. Staff resistance continued persistently and openly. Identifying and picking open the scab of poor practice had left the principal exposed and isolated. Members of her leadership team, tight as they were, considered leaving. Nancy actively undermined the leadership in the community and to other staff. She pulled together a team of key resisters and called in the support of ex-board members. There was an unsuccessful petition to return to the status quo.
The board and Mrs. Counts received anonymous hate mail. Overall, the board was fantastic but at times they wobbled. Looking back, she can see that she actually got very little support from her board chairperson. He left the leadership team and Mrs. Counts to deal with the conflict.
Mrs. Counts can honestly say the leadership team and she were truly professional and never disclosed the extent of the problem, but even if they had spoken out, the re-worded DESE report on the school said otherwise.
The re-wording of the report meant that the community did not understand the true urgency of the situation and did not support the changes. Some teachers behaved unprofessionally and openly criticized the changes in the community. The competency issues that Mrs. Counts knew would have to be addressed were difficult as parents were called in to support teachers.
The decision made to protect the good reputation of the school was not a good one. The re-worded report and the fact that Nancy had not heard the “real oil” from the state level feedback allowed some teachers to somehow discount the DESE report. It allowed teachers to avoid committing to change and to undermine the leadership team.
As she started competency procedures some teachers elected to leave thus creating another poor image in the eyes of the community. Mrs. Counts recalls the horror of her first personal grievance hearing and having to attend mediation.
Leader’s reflection
Challenging the status quo of a cruising school – would she do it differently again? When a school is cruising is there ever a right time to implement change? You have to accept that the journey will be tough – tougher than you ever imagined. Mrs. Counts believes that without a great leadership team with you the task of re-culturing a cruising school is nearly impossible.
She firmly believed that to bring about effective change she would need to work with her teachers and give everyone a chance to improve through professional learning. That was her belief then and it still is now. But the unprofessional behavior that she dealt with during that period of change challenged every belief about leadership that she had ever held.
A number of years on, through courage, conviction, and hard work the school has survived. Student achievement, school tone, climate and teacher practices are strong and healthy. There has been an 80 per cent turnover of staff, which has allowed them to rebuild a new school culture.
Reflection Questions
How does an effective leader balance having a positive school culture and making an impact on student performance? Why is it critical for kids that we do the right thing?
Look at your own school’s latest test results. What is the data telling your school about student performance? Is there an area that needs to be addressed? If so, what efforts are being made in professional growth of teachers, curriculum, and instructional practices to address it? Is there resistance? If so, explain why you believe that is so. If not, point out leadership practices that have led to success in addressing the data.
Standard 2 of the Arkansas Educators’ Code of Ethics says: An educator maintains competence regarding his or her professional practice, inclusive of professional and ethical behavior, skills, knowledge, dispositions, and responsibilities relating to his or her organizational position. It has been said that it is neglectful when teachers know how to do better and do not do it. Summarize Standard 2 in your own words. How could you use this standard to have “hard conversations” with teachers about improvement efforts without making teachers feel threatened in some way?