"They become principals to 'make a difference,' to right wrongs and correct flaws that chafed them as teachers and to assert a vision of schooling as it should be. The first great shock awaiting them is discovering how little power they truly have."
A true paradox. Evan's makes clear that school leaders do, in fact, wield great power. Their every action has the power to serve as a positive or negative example of what the school is trying to promote, and you can be sure that the leader's actions are closely scrutinized. As Evan's states, leaders are perpetually "in role," serving as representatives of the school. And yet, that power is indirect. It is "the staff...who must translate [the leader's] goals into action" on a daily basis. And if there is one characteristic that generally holds true for teachers all over the country it is that they are rather an independent breed of folks. Teachers highly value the ability to be able to teach what they want to teach in the manner that they wish to teach it. If developed properly, this is one of the great strengths of a school. Teachers who are teaching their passions will be engaged and motivated and that will likely translate to the students. But when leaders must institute policies that are unpopular with staff (and sometimes they must), how will the leader be received? How will the policy be instituted? A school leader does not have the "power" to institute a policy on his or her own. The power of the position comes only when it is given to the teachers (not sporadically, not in and inauthentic manner in order to manipulate later, but truly giving it over). A leader must have a vision that can inspire. Teachers must have real power over the ways to implement that vision. Paradoxically, this will increase the leader's power to help craft implementation if he or she so chooses.
No comments:
Post a Comment