EDEM 628:Week 8:Feb. 25 (PLC)

This week in class a group of students presented their topic on Professional Learning Communities. We began by clarifying terms like "leraning", "community" and "professional learning community". There were different definitions elicited by I particularly liked the definition of learning as an "on going process" - I don't remember who provided that one. I think that everyone was in agreement that a professional learning community entails several stakeholders such as administration, parents and students who work together to seek out solutions.

It was also explained that the principal of the school had a significant role to play in developing a PLC. He or she should be able to vmodel a committment to personal growth.

During the discussion, Gil asked a very significant question with regard to PLC: "How can a principal establish a PLC when there is such a high turn-over rate of administrators? Sam interjected by confirming that this is indeed a problem and that an administrator requires between 5-7 years to stay in a particular school and oversee the plan. I have to admit that this made me feel very cynical about affecting change in a school. As a rookie vice-principal, I have just completed my first year at Nesbitt and so far I have only been able to wet me feet, so to speak. I agree with Sam that an administrator requires a couple of years to see through any initiatives that are introduced. So why do the higher ups continue to move as around like pieces in a chess game?

I think one obvious reason is that we are at a stage where both teachers and administrators are ready for retirement. This huge block of babyboomers is going to leave a huge void that needs to be occupied.

During the breakout-room portion of the class, my group pondered the question: "What leadership qualities are needed by a principal to successfully develop a PLC? Some of the answers provided were: interpersonal skills, flexible, shared vision (ability to elicit input from the staff). It is this last point about eliciting input from the staff that led to an interesting debate between myself and Rob.

I made the point that a principal needs to be a strong leader. Yes, he or she should elicit input from the staff; however, you must also accept the fact that not everyone will be happy and as a principal you must accept losses and move ahead. I think my comments may have been misconstrued because Rob argued that you cannot have a successful plan unless the staff buys into it and ramming it down their throats is not very wise. I explained that I was not advocating any such thing, and that my position was that you cannot make everyone happy.

I think there are three types of people: those who do not particularly care and will go either way; those who have legitimate concerns and will challenge your views; and those who will challenge and oppose your vision just for the sake of challenging. This last group will continue to say black when you say white, and then say white when you say black. It is this group that I was refering to. It is individual staff members that fall into this group that I feel a strong leader must be able to leave behind. In my own experiences, I have seen how administrators can become paralyzed by such individuals because they are not prepared to accept the losses or to deal with conflict. Sam overheard this exchange and provided his own unique perspective which was similar to my view. He also provided an interesting example of how to minimize the negative effect that some staff members can have on others. The concept of staff meetings was modified to involve department meetings consisting of small groups of 7. This way, those interested in opposing just for the sake of oppossing (shit disturbers), became isolated and scattered throughout the samll group formation by department. An excellent idea that I hope to use one day.

Yet, some members of the breakout room, in oppossition to my stance, refered to the McAdam article where it states that: "Leaders must be nurturing and supportive of others and must be adept at facilitating whole-group change where no one is left behind. " (McAdam, p.18). This is a wonderful sentiment, however I think it is idealistic and naive to believe anybody dealing with a large number of individuals can accomplish this task. I don't think that McAdam has ever worked as an educational administrator. I think this is a general problem with most academics who have never worked as either teachers or administrators. They write about the "correct" way to teach, develop pedagogy and manage staff without having ever been in the trenches themselves. There is a definite gap between what they understand the issue to be and how the rank and file actually live it from day to day.