Beginnings

Welcome!  This beginning begins with an acknowledgment regarding the title of this blog.  It comes from  "The Power To Transform: Leadership That Brings Learning and Schooling  to Life" (Jossey-Bass) 2006, written by Stephanie Pace Marshall (www.stephaniepacemarshall.com) -- a dear friend and former colleague at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.  Steph's seminal book inspires and accelerates the birthing of the movement to transform learning and schooling in order to systemically  liberate  the goodness and genius of youth, by design.  

The blog gives me an opportunity to "go public" with my own learning legacy that derives from a four plus decades-long quest for a radical new story for education, but it also invites contributions  from others who tread the same path and who wish to engage in the dialectic: sharpening our conversation about learning and schooling in search of essential truths for living, learning and teaching.    

CHANGE ADVOCACY

History flows over with examples of men and women who were expelled and exiled from social institutions great and small because they clashed with the institutional ethos and process. Socrates was not destroyed because he was an evil man, but because he was so good a man that his fellow Athenians could not tolerate his presence on the streets of Athens. His fellows did not truly believe Galileo a stupid man or, indeed, a heretical man, but a man of such vision that he could not be endured.

Institutions do not welcome men and women of insight, energy and vision - men and women who are not in complete accord with the institution and its stated and unstated aspirations. The individual who is conscious of the dichotomy is immediately thrust into an adversarial position - but the individual has needs, hopes, and competencies that achieve their greatest actuality only in the context of the institution.

The individual, conscious of conflict with the institution, survives by being a change advocate, prospers by making change, and sometimes by being changed. The question assumes that institutions, among other problems, are hostile to change agents, have cruel and divisive defense strategies, and can exercise powerful force against the individual who seeks to alter what the institution perceives as the unalterable. The powerful forces may be sledgehammer-like, or of a silk and velvet texture, but in a practical personal sense, there is little difference between being pummeled and being strangled.

One early choice the individual faces is a choice of goals, style and sometimes circumstance. It is the choice of Achilles, son of Atreas: the choice between a short, glorious and spectacular life, and a long and seemingly less eventful one. Each option has its special lure and rewards. It is important for the individual to establish and maintain control over the option, and to determine the strategy in either case.

Controlling this option requires clarity of goals and a day-to-day understanding of objectives. The advantage to the individual is that individual goals are easily definable while institutional goals often are not. The other advantage is a more obvious one: the individual is stronger, more spontaneous, and much smarter than the institution.

Despite the position of strength, the individual is susceptible to doubt, error, trusting too much, trusting too little, loneliness and discouragement. The institution is ready, of course, to take advantage of the moment and to deal with the individual with dispatch. Following are some suggestions culled from both moments of despair and of triumph. A person's own strategy is a sensitive and personal one honed through experience and struggle, but these are elements that may be helpful parts.

I. CORRECT ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTION GOALS & PROCESSES

Knowing your enemy is a key aspect of military strategy, which applies well here. The individual must determine what the goals of the institution are. This assumes both stated and real goals.

An understanding of the goals helps focus individual action. If some goals are mutually held, well and good: let that be a definable point of confluence. When goals are not commonly held, define clearly the goals and their differences and use this data as part of a plan to act.

The same applies for institutional process, how the institution does things. Define this clearly, painstakingly. Identify points of agreement and disagreement. Focus on individual priorities. Unless this analysis is carefully done and continually revised, the individual flounders, lacks focus, and grasps at straws. Tremendous energy is wasted, dissipated, and the individual is left ineffective, often frustrated and bitter, and all for no apparent reason.

II. CORRECT ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL GOALS AND PROCESSES

IMPLIED IN THE ABOVE STRATEGY IS A PERSONAL GOALS AND PROCESS DEFINITION.  WHAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL ABOUT?  WHAT ARE THE GOALS?  WHAT DOES THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVE IN PASSIONATELY?  WHAT SIGNIFICANTLY?  WHAT NOT AT ALL?  HOW MUCH EGO-TRIPPING IS INVOLVED?  HOW COMFORTABLE IS THE INDIVIDUAL WITH SELF?  WHY RELATE TO AN INSTITUTION AT ALL?  WHY THIS INSTITUTION?  HOW DO INDIVIDUAL GOALS AND INSTITUTIONAL GOALS CONVERGE?  HOW DO THEY GRATE?

III. THE THEORY OF COTERIE

EARLY IN ENCOUNTERING AN INSTITUTION, IDENTIFY LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE WHO MAY BECOME MUTUAL SUPPORTERS.  THIS NEED NOT TAKE ON THE ASPECT OF A CONSPIRACY, BUT IT MAY.  CONSPIRACY IS A WORD WITH TWO LATIN ROOTS MEANING "BREATHING TOGETHER."  NOT A BAD IDEA AT ALL.  ONE EXAMPLE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS STRATEGY IS BELL KAUFMAN'S CASE IN UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE.  THE TEACHER SEEKS TO SURVIVE AND EFFECT A HOSTILE NEW YORK CITY HIGH SCHOOL.  HER ONE FRIEND IN THE SCHOOL SUPPORTS HER, SENDS HER SILLY NOTES, ENCOURAGES, UNDERSTANDS AND CARES FOR HER.  KAUFMAN SEEMS ONLY MINIMALLY AWARE THAT HER EFFECT ON THE FRIEND IS MUTUAL

IV. ASSESSMENT OF RISKS

SOME SITUATIONS CAN BE DIAGNOSED EARLY AS UNWORKABLE FOR SOME INDIVIDUALS.  THE ENERGY CONSUMED IN SEEKING TO RESOLVE THE UNRESOLVABLE IS UNREASONABLE.  PERSONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH COMES FROM STRUGGLE AND RISK.  THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE BEFORE MAMMOTH COMMITMENT IS MADE.  IT IS IMPORTANT AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERS AFFILIATION WITH AN INSTITUTION TO ASSESS THE RISKS INVOLVED.  WHAT ARE THE WORST THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ME?  WHAT ARE THE BEST THINGS?  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF FAILURE, PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY?  IS THE RISK WORTH TAKING?  THERE IS NO POINT IN RISKING ALL FOR A SOGGY MARSHMALLOW.

SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE UPON INSTITUTIONS USUALLY IMPLIES SIGNIFICANT RISK.  DETERMINING WHICH ARE THE SIGNIFICANT RISKS WORTH TAKING AND TAKING THEM IS THE ESSENCE OF THE ART OF CHANGE.