Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • T. Biddle, J. The Three Rs of Leadership PDF

    Uploaded by

    Luis Alberto Moscoso Araneda
    50 views18 pages

    Original Title

    T. Biddle, J. The Three Rs of Leadership.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    50 views18 pages

    T. Biddle, J. The Three Rs of Leadership PDF

    Uploaded by

    Luis Alberto Moscoso Araneda

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 18
    h Three Rs o LEADERSHIP Building Effective Early Childhood Programs Through Relationships, Reciprocal Learning, and Reflection Julie K. Biddle, PhD HIGHScorE = nReYyC’ PRESS® i ‘patent, wichigon ‘Wathington DC BEING IN RELATIONSHIP. ‘The importance of relationships in any orgenization is common sense to most ‘of us, Afterall, organizations are nade up of people, and being in relationship ‘with others is part of being human, Many of us value the process of developing, ‘nurturing, and sustaining relationships. However, cultivating relationships is arduous work, and many organizations, including educational programs and school systems, fail to provide the support and structures necessary for nurtur- ing strong working relationships. Building healthy and powerful relationships in early childhood programs is an intentional process; they do not develop acciden- tally or automatically. Fan educational organization does not actively nurture the relationships between its stakeholders — encouraging both personal and professional responsibility and accountability — then reciprocal learning and reflective practice will be hard to establish. How to Nurture Being in Relationship: The Basics ‘There are a few basic ingredients that are essential if organizations are to nurture the act of being in relationship. These key ingredients are communication, time, the ability to handle conflict agreeably, trust, and respect. It is virtually impos- sible to be in @ healthy relationship, whether personal or professional, ifthere is no communication between the parties involved, Communicating and sharing information clearly, openly, and often, can cut down on misunderstandings and faulty assumptions. You cannot overcommunicate with others. In order to learn together and create shared beliefs, group members must speak to one another, listen to one another, and hear one another. [My very first classroom as a teacher was in an “annex” to the bus gerage of «rural public school. The annex housed the two kindergarten classrooms. The other kindergarten teacher taught only in the afternoon, while I had both @ ‘morning and an afternoon class. We were faily isolated in the annex and could go several days without seeing other faculty members whase classrooms were in the school building (grades 1-12) across the street. fit the pattern that Lortie (1975) described as typical ofa beginning teacher who worked things out for herself in isolation. (Lortie was one of the frst sociologists to look at the struc- tural features of teaching and the meanings teachers attach to their work. He examined hovr teachers are socialized within schools, especially in their day-to- day interactions. He also focused on the goals teachers set and the problems that complicate their realization.) Times essential in buding srong working relationships. ‘The Three Rs of LEADERSHIP ‘During my second year of teaching, I moved across the street into the main building to teach third grade, For the next three years I continued to work things ‘out in isolation. I saw other teachers as they walked past my classroom on their ‘way to the office and teachers’ lounge, but we rarely talked to one another, I rarely ‘saw my principal. I quickly learned that teachers worked alone, even those at the ‘same grade level. [iked to teach with my classroom door open, but I was often asked to close it because my students were making too much noise. The measure ofa good teacher, in that school, was how quiet her students were, ‘My next school was different, with strong working relationships between and among the teachers. Not only did we communicate with one another, we spent time together through meetings and other formal structures enabled by schoo! policies, and in informal exchanges based on the relationships initially fostered through these planned gatherings. According to Carlina Rinaldi, executive consultant for Reggio Children, and a professor at the University of ‘Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy “In any formative relationship, time is the necessary element for creating the relationship. So a school that forms (relation- ships] isa school that gives time — time to children, time to teachers, time for their being together. There has to be the possibility in schools, of any kind, the possibility in any group, to create connections bat also to live difference and conflicts” (Rinaldi, 2006, p.207). At my new school, time was allotted for grade-level meetings in addition to our regularly scheduled staff meetings. Our principal was in our classroom every single day, ust walking through, seeing students, observing what we were doing, saying hello, being ‘visible, connecting with us if only for five minutes. The principal often left notes con out lesson plans. We knew she consistently reviewed our plans and was aware cof what was going on in our classrooms. When conflict arose, it was dealt with openly through discussion and with all parties involved. I remember being called into the principal’ office for something I had done in the classroom that she didn't agree with. The principal and I openty discussed the problem, resolved the issue by examining alternative approaches I might have taken, and moved oon. It was easy for me to trust and respect her because she consistently demon- strated trust in and respect for her staff. She regularly “volunteered” us to lead a discussion at our faculty meetings about something she observed us doing in the classroom that she believed others on the faculty would benefit from hearing about. She could have easly told the story herself but she respected us as profes- sionals, wanted us to take leadership for our own initiative and creativity, and fs BEING IN RELATIONSHIP encouraged us to make public what so ofien is Kept private (ic, isolated), namely our professional practice. 1 developed professional as well as personal relationships a this school. It ‘was my first experience of a sense of “family” at my workplace, but not my last. Systems and Structures for Building Relationships Organizations cheracterized by cliques and factions, whose members don't work together, much less trust and respect one another, cannot become organizations filled with purposeful conversations and ongoing communications. By contrast, ‘when organizations initiate systems and structures for building relationships, staff can work together effectively for the benefits of others, their own profes- sional growth, and the institution as a whole. The people in these organizations can develop both trustworthy and mutually trusting relationships. They can demonstrate respect for others and become respected. Most of the folks in strong relationship organizations learn to deal with conflict constructively (usually ‘rough open dialogue) and view it as an opportunity for growth, rather than, as a threat It isin these organizations where relationships are nurtured, and ultimately sustained. So what are some of the structures and systems that ‘educational programs can use to build, nurture, and sustain relationships? Foundational Valuing of Relationships First, there must be a foundational valuing of relationships; that is, early childhood programs must support children and adults in achieving their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust, respect, and positive regard, Cooperative and collaborative relationships among parents, teachers, and children must be seen as the essential means by which goals are identified and achieved (Gee Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, especially pp. 9-23). In developmentally appropriate practice, according to the position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, “The foundation for the community is consistent, positive, cating relationships between the adults and children, among children, among teachers, and between teachers and families. It is the responsibilty of all members of the learning community to consider and contribute to one another's well-being and learning” (Copple & Bredekamp, p16) ‘This isa basic assumption, but one that is not always present in schools and other organizations for a variety of reasons. A key reason may relate tohow terms like comity or family involvement are defined by teachers and staff especially, and also by parents. In some programs, for example, parents are considered “invalved” only if they volunteer in the classroom — that is, if they physically come to school and volunteer their services in the classroom or school program. Thus, home- based parent activities that support their children’s school experience don't count 4s involvement, according to this narrow definition, and parent involvement ‘overall might be judged as “low” by program stakeholders. On the other hand, if Parent/family involvement is considered more broadly, and includes what parents & Faris become involved it programs when they feel welcomed. ‘The Three Rs of LEADERSHIP do athome to help prepare their child for school (i.e. assure that a child gets adequate sleep, read to their child regularly), then family involvement may be considered to be quite “high.” What parents do at home to support children in preparation for school, as well as their service to the school whether as a volun- {eer or member of a committee, should qualify as parent/family involvement. If families are viewed as competent, capable adults and as willing collaborators in the education oftheir children, then ‘more often than not, teachers’ expectations for family members is based on respect and ‘rust. Family involvement isand should be ‘an expectation ofa program, but it cannot be dictated. It should be assumed that parents will contribute as they can and as they see meaning in their participation, Family involvement in ¢ program is based on the quality, not quantity, of family participation and is always welcomed. This ‘welcoming attitude makes a difference in establishing relationships with families. ‘Sometimes organizations don't have the necessary information or time set aside to form collaborative working relationships. Others have restrictive system barriers (eg., union contract language that does not permit extended days for collaborative work or meetings before or after school hours). And sometimes the individuals in an organization simply resist building relationships with others because they've never worked in that manner before, or they (e.g. Parents) may have had negative school experiences and are now suspicious of being engaged in relationships with educators. When parents feel welcomed into a program, they ate more likely to become engaged in the activities ofthe program. Size and Stability of Personnel In addition to the foundational valuing of relationships, other factors that dete rine whether good working relationships develop include the organization's size and the stability of personnel. Large organizations are more likely to work from the industrial, top-down paradigm than to create systems and structures that foster relationships. It takes time and effort to figure out how to cross boundaries ‘of large groups of people, in large or multiple facilities, with complex schedules; ‘often the will to commit time and resources to this complicated work does not exist, Ifrelationships are not highly valued by an organization, then this work: ‘will not be given high priority and wont be done, In some cases, the belief is that the work of an organization can be done without the building of relationships, however, collegial relationships are essential. Larger preschool programs (eg. BEING IN RELATIONSHIP Head Start programs serving a thousand or more children) are contained in centers serving a few hundred children between the ages ofthree and five, so the possibilities for good working relationships remain, despite the rate of high ‘turnover in staff from year to year, Smaller programs (less than 300 students) with 1 more stable staff may find it easier to nurture relationships, though not without purposeful effort, as smaller organizations also struggle with high staff turnover. ‘Many programs (especially those in urban settings) deal with a high rate of staff turnover each year. Integration of new staff must begin as soon as they are hited. New staff need more than the typical one- or two-day in-service at the start of the year to feel a sense of belonging to the program they've just joined, A simple ritual like hosting an annual beginning. of-the-year picnic can break down barriers for individuals and begin to integrate them into the culture of the rogram, How we introduce ourselves to one another can make a big difference too. A simple structure that helps stafflearn about their colleagues and builds a sense of team early on is “What's in the Bag?” introductions, Everyone is asked to bring a personal item or two, in a bag, that represents who they are asa person. At each staff meeting during the first weeks of the school year afew staff ‘members share whats in their bags. Through these introductions, individuals connect with others who have shared interests, and they provide a simple starter to many conversations and relationships. It is hard work for staff members to be fully present with others and to participate in a complex pattern of communication — sharing observations and interpretations, correcting and complementing each other, torn by conflict one -minute and joined by consensus in the next (Palmer, 1998). Being in relationship with colleagues calls for valuing vulnerability more than power, being comfort: able with uncertainty, and relinguishing the idea that there is one night answer. For example, itis difficult to admit toa colleague that you don't know how to ‘work with a student or don't understand what is happening that causes a child to respond ina certain way, It requires risk taking and experimentation over prescription and means an emphasis on learning together rather than on figuring things out in isolation. Larger organizations must find ways to create smaller ‘units that can foster a shared commitment to community, and when personnel changes regularly there must be structures set up that permit careful, intentional inclusion into the organizational community Structures, such as focused study ‘groups and team planning that bring people together in smaller groups help new people feel a sense of belonging, at least to a small segment of the larger organi- zation (more will be said ebsut how this happens in chapter 4). ‘One vivid example of this commitment to community, and building and sustaining of relationships, is lived out in the early childhood programs of Reggio Emilia Italy. The educators in Reggio Emilia preschools understand the value and power of relationships, viewing them as catalysts for learning (Lewin-Benham, 2006). The Three Rs of LEADERSHIP ‘The Use of Time in Building Relationships A brief examination of how time, dialogue, and conflict are viewed in Reggio Emilia schools illustrates the point. If you have traveled to Italy or had occasion to live there fora while, you quickly begin to see how differently time is viewed. “There is always time for conversation, Conversation occurs over your morning coffee at the corner caffé or with someone you meet on the street or at the ‘market. The midday meal provides yet another opportunity for conversation with family or friends and can last hours. The late afternoon aperitif (i.e. a drink and small snack) and conversation is @ common ritual, followed by dinner conversa~ tion and the customary passeggtata serale, or evening stroll inthe streets and neighborhoods. Because time for conversation and thus building of relationships is such an integral part of the Italian culture, itis not surprising that programs in Reggio Emilia provide time — for the children, teachers, and parents in their community to be together. Educators in developmentally appropriate programs view time as an ally and use it to support children’s explorations, curiosities, and interests, These educators know that young children need time to discover and rediscover and to think and rethink. Young children must have time to experi- cence, to develop, and to understand new ideas. ‘Young children (adults too) quickly recognize if they are listened to, or not; ifthey axe cared for, or not; iftheir ideas are accepted, or not; and if they can do things, or not. When being in relationship is valued, time is available for listening, caring, accepting, and being with others. I often hear teachers com- plain about the lack of sufficient time in the school day to achieve their educa- tional goals, but a closer examination suggests that the problem has more to do ‘with how time is used, rather than how much time is actually available, A rigid schedule of daily tasks i often found hanging somewhere in the classroom. I've seen these in both preschool and primary classrooms. The difference is that in preschool programs, the daily tasks are displayed as pictures and in the primary classroom words replace the visual images. Students are rushed from one activity to another, from one class to the next. It is not uncommon to hear, “Hurry up nov it’s almost time for...” from a teacher in this kind of classroom, What message does this statement send to our young children? In a high-quality preschool setting (Le., a program where meaningful learning takes place), a visitor might observe something quite different. For example, in a Montessori setting an observer might encounter 2 calm and relaxed atmosphere, with soft music playing in the background, Attractive materials are readily available for children to work with on neatly arranged shelves. Children do not follow a formal schedule but instead have long periods of uninterrupted workshop time. Teachers act as facilitators and conduct, observations as children attend to their daily tasks and explorations. Daily tasks ‘might include writing, reading, recycling and composting, feeding the rabbit BEING IN RELATIONSHIP and fish, watering plants, vacuuming and sweeping, math, science, sensory activities, and art A child may spend hours or even days working with the same material Although there is no set schedule, Montessori teachers provide for a balance of individual project work, small-group cooperative work, small- {group lessons, and large-group lessons. Older children (four- and five-year-olds) use a written “work plan” to guide what they accom- When being plish each day. The teachers assess these work plans to ensure the ja ation students are on task. Since Montessori educators view each child as See hhis or her own teacher, most ofthe day is organized around choices that meet the child’s own cognitive and social needs (Megan Knight, personal communication, 2010), is valued, © time is available ‘Some programs do create time and space for personnel to work “caring, accepting, together, other than using before- and after-school time. Some “and being districts provide a half-day each month for teachers to collaborate.

    You might also like