The change can not be decreed. Even if they invite more autonomy and defend educational goals laudable, changes or proposed reforms to school authorities and teachers usually do not initially enough tangible benefits or demonstrated that their arrival causes a sustained enthusiasm.
Why then impose further reform the school system? In a bureaucratic culture well established, it generally causes among employees a withdrawal reaction …
In this article published in Education and Francophone, ” The distributed leadership: the test of educational reforms . “pdf, the article analyzes the practical implementation of the latest reform in Quebec schools.
“You can not pass magically from a bureaucratic culture to a culture of corporate responsibility, as this passage raises at first a reaction of mistrust that does nothing to promote a climate of collaboration, exchange and sharing of responsibilities . ”
… climate which is essential for successful transformation.
One can draw an analogy with the use of the Internet in class without questioning the pedagogical relations between teacher and student, this use remains superficial and without noticeable effect.
“Technologies” are a matter of communication and their introduction into the government induces a number of possible changes just waiting to be realized, since the relationship between central governments and schools, and between administrators schools and teachers, are modified.
We would not have thought of asking students and teachers to pass without transition from undifferentiated to a directive pedagogy autonomy in personalized learning.
“Rather than mobilizing teachers to find solutions for teaching in a collective sharing and collaboration, the implementation strategy seems to have fostered a resistance to change might be considered legitimate. All this seems rather create a culture of confrontation with management, then seen as the spokesman and ambassador for these changes, and prevented the distribution of leadership. ”
Power and Responsibility
Nor students are dupes when they proposed to “take charge of their learning process” in a so rigid that it leaves only a facade of independence, teachers and even administrators n appreciate it a pseudo autonomy controls are so tight and frequent they can exercise real choices.
“Brassard (2007) reports inter alia that since the reform, principals have more responsibilities but less power. Results of previous research show clearly that the directions are disturbed by the control measures to the detriment of their work and their responsibilities in the field. ”
“Instead of encouraging greater support by granting more autonomy and power to principals, the control measures put in place (accountability) have ensured that the directions relative to the power amputated and they have thus found an inability to distribute it. ”
The whole issue of trust in the competence of administrators and teachers is at stake is indeed a risk, but want to eliminate any risk of under performance against gum eventually interest to take responsibility for change.
Change insecure = + benefits
Moreover, in comfort and safety properly installed, protected and sometimes hard-won, Any substantive changes will eventually be seen as a disturbance and will demonstrate some clear advantages, and from this or these positive and build win its support in the pursuit of shared goals.
This promotion, demonstration of the benefits and gains support is a hallmark of successful changes. It does not necessarily mean to devote much time and need to do everything at once, that we should only do one way or another.
“The distributed leadership seems to be a risk, the act of distributing the influence does not guarantee 1) that this distribution is desired, required or desired by school staff and 2) that power is distributed mobilized to achieve the same goals. ”
The distribution of leadership beyond the individual interests, or corporate supporters, is a major cultural change. In a system controlled by a government itself monitored by media eager for the smallest gaps, the distribution of leadership involves the actual distribution of power and responsibility: the government is also distributed, if any outcome is possible, he wants and must control everything.
To achieve this we can assume that we should put a lot of people agree on all levels. Anyway, we will soon have little choice to do so and the sooner the better: when the information and knowledge flows (Internet came around), everyone can take more responsibility and should sometimes deems it do