Following this meeting, the three of us, teacher leaders, spent the remainder of our day analyzing data and discussing what organizational change needed to occur to improve the situation, or as it was discussed in our meetings, “the crisis.” We were charged by the assistant superintendent to be leaders of a School Improvement Team. Through this process, as the teacher leaders, we were asked a few questions, “Who will be the chairperson of this team? And which faculty members should be a part of this group? And What data supports our inclinations about what teachers are doing in their classrooms? 

Negative teacher perceptions demonstrate what Bolman and Deal (2013) discuss as, “coercive power” and “alliances and networks” when the discuss sources of power. Within the team of teachers, there were alliances and networks that formed immediately based on Bolman and Deal’s (2013) idea that having “friends and allies makes things a lot easier.” Teachers sat in the area of the room with their groups of people and made negative comments against the evidence that change needed to happen. The coercive power, as discussed by Bolman and Deal (2013), developed as teachers decided whether or not they would interfere with the team or block the progress of the team following the difficult meetings. During the forming of the team, coercive power and alliances and networks destroyed progress that was made during meetings. These negative pockets of energy were resistance to change or as Burke (2018) discussed it as “a resistance to losing something of value to the person” in which “feelings of anxiety associated with such change are quite normal.” 

The administrators in this development were also involved to support the teachers’ efforts by providing substitutes and school day working times, promised funds to provide lunch or breakfast for the committee, and funds for executing the team’s decisions. Bolman and Deal (2013), discussed this type of leadership that “by giving a team clear authority and then staying out of the way, management releases collective energy and creativity.” 

Lacking in the development of the team structure was, as described by Bolman and Deal (2013), “a focused, cohesive structure” and rather the team faced moments of failure when the “group structure constantly generated inequity, confusion and frustration.” Early team meetings were unsuccessful. Team members left feeling unaccomplished and defeated. 

Strategies discussed by Bolman and Deal (2013) to help with the new changes would be, “training to develop new skills” and “participation and involvement.” The School Improvement Team needed more training to develop a plan that would alleviate the problems that were uncovered. The team was in need of more guidance from the leadership. Through what Bolman and Deal (2013) called “distinctive sets of barriers,” there are essential strategies that the team needed to take: “communicating, realigning, and renegotiating formal patterns and policies” and “developing arenas where issues could be renegotiated.” Both of these strategies would have helped the team combat the frustrations of members. Guidelines for the meetings and realignment of the expectations needed to be reiterated often.

Bolman and Deal (2013) discuss the human resources frame stating that, “Organizations need ideas, energy, and talent…” This statement applies to the assumption that the School Improvement Team encompassed faculty members with different perspectives across the building. These perspectives were brought to the meeting room to discuss ways to improve student performance at Spring Grove Area Intermediate School. 

The administrators involved in the team motivated the teachers to “find meaningful and satisfying work” (Bolman and Deal, 2013), while the organization as a whole benefited from the data analysis and organizational change took place.

From the political frame, the School Improvement Team meetings often included heated conversations, explanations of personal perspectives, and at times, upsetting realizations. Bolman and Deal (2013) discuss this frame stating, “Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiation among competing stakeholders jockeying for their own interests.” This statement highlights some of the conversations that were challenged with the question, What does the data tell us about that? During the meeting times, personal perspectives had to be defended with evidence. 

Through the political frame, teachers within the group had formed their own smaller teams of teachers with what Bolman and Deal (2013) note as the “enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality.” Faculty members had emotional connections to the decisions discussed and the data presented at the meetings. Fifth grade teachers were appalled at the scores and felt vested in the numbers and figuring out which areas needed improving an how we could improve the structure of the system to get the students to improve. 

Through the symbolic frame, there were rituals that the group took on as time passed. Rituals, as described by Bolman and Deal (2013), “Enacting a ritual connects an individual or group to something mystical, more than words or rational thinking can capture.” For example, committees sat together at the meetings even if they were not meeting that day, and each person sat in that same seat each time we met. 

Another symbol throughout the time that this team met was certain sayings that the same teachers would say. For example, each team member took on their role in the team. There was a teacher who was the “deeply passionate” grade five teacher who would come to tears at times over the discussions. There ended up being the “time-keeper” teacher who was the on-task man and he would make sure we kept things moving. The team would joke about each of the roles the team members played while heated discussions took place. This helped the team to make positive progress, laugh in heated moments, and respectfully disagree.

In retrospect, the meetings were conducted, at times, in a very serious manner. The superintendent, assistant superintendent, and the principal had placed a great deal of importance on the developments that would come from this team. They also placed those expectations on my shoulders. I am a very passionate and committed person, therefore I set out to make the best out of the time we had. However, for me, this turned into very serious and structured meetings, while I probably needed to be more personable and light hearted at much needed times. I remember a veteran teacher once said to me, “You are so serious all the time.” At the time, I did feel it was personal, however she was the “straight shooter” of the team and meant no harm, rather she was being honest and open to me in terms of how the faculty viewed my personality when we presented. An improvement would be to weave in stories, jokes, and symbols at times to provide more inspiration and facilitation instead of direction and structure.

“Thinking on your feet” would be another improvement to note. The faculty throughout the school was asking questions, discussing the team, and providing a negative connotation about the School Improvement Team. As a team, the task of sharing information was to keep conversations positive yet truthful. We talked as a team about making sure we told our teammates what was happening and why we were meeting, in addition to having faculty time to share our findings and the work we were conducting to research what could be done to improve as a building. I reflect and wish I would have been quicker to responding to the negative opinions of the group. We took many hours from our students to research data across the school and try to make improvements for all, not just the team members involved in the process. Many times, I responded to the negativity with either no words or with, “Our scores are not where they should be.” I did not feel confident to stand up to the naysayers and often felt guilty for being one of the newer members of the staff and yet to have been heading up the team. Looking back, I needed to be more confident in myself while also, just being who I am. I needed to be more vocal and involved when other team members stepped up and wrecked progress we had made due to their decisions or their poor reputation with the staff. 

One final change that would be important to note is political. Surrounding this team, there was a great deal of politics happening both behind the scenes and during conversations with the team. The assistant superintendent and the principal would come to each meeting, insert their comments on occasion and watch the dynamics unfold. At times, they would add comments or perspectives to transform conversations. The assistant superintendent would talk to the co-chairs after the meeting privately. At times, the conversations would overstep boundaries. Such as, conversations about the principal or about certain colleagues. In reflection, I regret not being more vocal to end these conversations or at least be more careful in my response. I did feel uncomfortable at times because of these conversations, however, I also very much respected upper administration, and I trusted and perceived everything he was doing was to help the staff and ultimately the students. I still fully believe his purpose was not to overstep bounds, but rather to improve the school, starting with the teaching staff.   

 

Burke, W.W. (2018). Organization change: Theory & practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning supporting adult development in our schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.