|
  |
|
|
Conflict Resolution & Plan for Principals
Starting the new school year, last fall, with a new principal was a difficult time. Not having a clear direction with many important issues was confusing and at times nerve racking. One conflict, which has still not been solved, started approximately in November of last year. The staff of Woodbrook was informed that a new schedule was going into effect for the next school year 2003/2004. A Schedule Committee was formed with at least one grade level teacher and the councilors available at school. The committee was to analyze the different types of schedules available and to research other schools on what was effective for them. The Committee met once a month and reported any findings and possible schedule drafts to the Site Council. Many of the staff did not want to give up their schedules and many problems ensued, including the lack of trust between committees, staff and administration. It is still not clear if there are to be any changes in the schedule and staff members are unsure of what the new school year will bring. Once the proposed schedule change was announced to the staff there were an amazing amount of questions such as: What are the benefits? What will it look like? Will we lose our current planning period? How many periods will we have? Will we keep our current teaching partners? The steps of finding a new schedule are difficult and can be overbearing so a committee was formed to research and develop a new schedule. The committee first came together and had a brainstorming meeting on how they could tackle such large feet in changing a schedule that had been in effect for five years. The committee decided to devise several surveys asking the staff what they thought a quality schedule included and what type of electives could benefit our student population. They then relayed the information to the Site Council for input. The development of a schedule was beginning to take form in February; the deadline was at the end of the month. Three schedule plans were formed and brought to the Principal and Site Council, each having a seven period day with a remedial period in the beginning of the day. Another question was then brought to the table: What will we do during this remedial time, should it be for reading or for math? During these 2 months the schedule committee came to a consensus to split the remedial time between math and reading. During this time the Instructional Facilitator researched remedial reading programs but not a remedial math program. Debates went on for two more months before the staff was asked to vote on one of the three schedules. During this time the new idea was that only reading would be covered during the remedial time. This sent the staff into a large debate. What happened to the remedial math time that was discussed earlier? Who made the decision to change the schedule one more time? Communication broke down and trust was broken. Positional bargaining became the prevailing attitude and the interest for what was best for our students forgotten.
Analysis of the Problem
The interest of raising student WASL scores must be separated from the positions of the staff (Fisher, Ury 1999). Reading currently is at approximately 60% passing and Math is at 16% passing. The majority of Language Arts teachers feel that the problem with math scores being so low is because of below level reading scores. Students simply cannot read the problems, thus the student does not answer the problem correctly. While the math department believes this is true, they also believe that basic math problem solving strategies are missing and the combination of the two is why the scores are so low. Positions were further separated when the Principal of our building decided that the extra period should be used only for remedial reading. While great in theory the decision was not a staff decision and a past staff vote was over looked in which the staff decided to split the week with 3 days devoted to remedial reading and 2 days devoted to remedial math. It is my belief the Instructional Facilitator being a retired principal herself insisted to the new principal to stick with a reading period and stay with a hard bargaining negotiation. This conflict was never solved completely with a staff buy in and there for it will not have full support (Fisher, Ury 1999).
My Plan of Action
A plan of action should be put into place with the interest of the problem as the mission. This plan should include the surveys that were taken in the beginning of the year and a schedule committee. Revisit the issue as a staff each month, gathering more research and concerns along the way. Making sure a clear vision and options for mutual gain of all staff is addressed (Fisher, Ury 1999). We must develop and research multiple options to chose from and then have the staff decide later on how to accomplish the change. While brainstorming options it is important to:
1. Seat the Participants side by side facing the problem (Fisher, Ury 1999).
2. Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule. (Fisher, Ury 1999).
3. Record the ideas in full view. (Fisher, Ury 1999).
After brainstorming options it is important to:
1. Star (mark) the most promising ideas. (Fisher, Ury 1999). (Fisher, Ury 1999).
2. Invent improvements for promising ideas (Fisher, Ury 1999).
3. Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide. (Fisher, Ury 1999).
Next would be to find approaches to the issue. Select several options and have the staff vote on one. If one is not picked allow time for discussion and perhaps have a concept chair method of solving or coming to a consensus. With most of the staff in agreement, a no compliance contract can be signed, schedules can be made and the staff can move one.
Reference List Fisher, R. & Ury W. (1991). Getting to Yes Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Abstract
This conflict resolution analysis and plan paper is about a reoccurring issue at Woodbrook Middle School. Since the beginning of the school last year, the staff was told that the schedule was going to be changed to help with remedial issues, this was to help WASL scores. A survey was taken and a committee was formed given a deadline of the end of February. The Schedule committee then met and brought forth three options all with a seven period day and it was decided that reading and math would be split during the week (3 to 2 days). When the staff could not decided on a schedule the issue went unsolved. At the end of our school year the staff was told that the seventh period would be dedicated to Reading which came across as a hard positional bargaining negotiation (Fisher, Ury 1999) this turned into more hard positional bargaining and nothing was formally solved.
|
Contributor's Note
John Nystrom is currently trying his hand at BANS stores www.goldcoinsearch.com and www.gibsons4sale.com
|
|
|
 |
|
PLEASE VISIT THE CONTRIBUTOR'S WEBSITE
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "Conflict Resolution & Plan for Principals" has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
|
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
