Abstract

Through examination of a process of development and implementation of an aligned Student Support Services model for the Grand Erie District School Board, I examine my work as a manager and leader to potentially generate my own theory of organizational management and leadership. This article examines my experience as an agent of change and articulates the personal theory of management/leadership that has begun to emerge as a result of this particular journey.

Getting Started

Before I even began in the position of Principal-Leader of Special Education and Student Support Services, I had given a great deal of consideration to the nature and availability of support to which schools have access in order to assist students who may be deemed exceptional (students who have been formally identified through the Identification, Placement and Review Process), or who simply may be at-risk in school (students who are having a difficult time academically, socially, emotionally in school, but are not formally identified).

I had much earlier in my career come to the conclusion that there really never are enough supports, particularly for our most needy and at-risk children. Through this project, and through my experiences as Principal-Leader, I have altered my thoughts on this. In fact, I have developed a new concept of support. Borrowing from the adage,

...If you fish for a man, he will have food for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he will have food for a lifetime... (Fish! Video, Charthouse Learning, 2002)

I began to explore what I really meant by support. Did this mean that someone, somewhere would come and take a student away and 'fix them' miraculously? Would that one-on-one clinical intervention provide the 'band-aid' so I could then bring the student back into the fold and work with them? What I have come to realize instead is that one-on-one intervention, while useful for some, is not really going to change the way we collectively work with children. So we provide the fish for the one student through clinical intervention, but meanwhile, the rest of the 'school' is 'floundering' (pun intended!). If we really are going to support students, we need to generalize how to support students to all teachers, educational assistants, support staff, administrators, etc. Everyone needs to learn to fish!

Logically I knew that the clinical model of support wouldn't work -- there are no such things as quick fixes to chronic mental health and environmental factors that often impact the lives of our most at-risk students. I knew instead that if we are really going to make long standing changes in the lives of children, we need to provide the kind of support that is about teaching and learning, rather than clinical intervention. That isn't to say that clinical, one-on-one intervention isn't necessary -- it is just to say that it really isn't what we are about as educators. I am not a psychiatrist, nor a pediatrician, nor are the school personnel. Schools, in their effort to please everyone, have sometimes taken on more than they should. In fact, in doing this, we have set ourselves up for failure, and created expectations that we can provide services we can't. Also, we are doing the 'fishing', not teaching others to 'fish'.

So, how do we re-focus on what we are about, and at the same time try to support schools in supporting their students? The needs are not getting less complex, so what do we do?

Enter the Student Support Services model....

Background

I am sure there are a number of perspectives on where we were in Grand Erie in 2001 with respect to the delivery of Student Support services. In fact, for the first few weeks and months in my new position, I listened a great deal to a number of different stakeholders who all had something to say about Student Support services. The group themselves, comprised of approximately 35 to 40 staff members, representing the Psychological Consultants, the Speech and Language Pathologists (S.L.P.), the Social Workers, the Attendance Counsellors, the Behaviour Counsellors, the Communication Disorder Assistants (C.D.A.), had a great deal to say. The school personnel -- Principals, Vice-Principals, Learning Resource Teachers (L.R.T.), Self-Contained Class Teachers, Educational Assistants (E.A.) all had something to add to the dialogue. The Superintendents and the staff at the area offices, such as the Teacher Consultants -- they, too, had a perspective. And the parents and the members of Special Education Advisory Council (S.E.A.C.) -- these groups also brought their insights to the table.

The general themes that emerged from these perspectives were:

1. Since amalgamation, there were unresolved issues relating to the delivery of Student Support Services. Some areas of the district had access to certain services, while other areas did not have that service available to them. Also, there were many hard feelings within the Student Support Services group themselves about the size and nature of caseloads, and a strong sentiment that things were not fair.

2. There was a significant lack of trust among the Support staff. This mistrust was particularly acute in their relationships with one another and with Teacher-Consultants, Principal-Leaders and management as a whole.

3. Schools were not being equitably served. This became even more apparent when we were faced with the added responsibility of preparing files for the Intensive Support Amount (I.S.A.) process. I.S.A. involves the development of an individual file on a student that profiles, in detail, the student's learning needs. I.S.A. files must meet a rigid standard defined by the Ministry of Education, and are reviewed by a panel of objective auditors against this standard. Schools and central staff must prepare these files which, if they meet the standard, generate revenue for the board to use to support the learning needs of the students within its jurisdiction. This process places significant responsibilities on Support Services, in particular on Psychological Consultants, who, because of differing role expectations in different centres, had a very challenging time completing the assessments required for I.S.A. in one part of the district. Other gaps in service were also intensified during the I.S.A. process. Parents were very aware of this, and schools felt the parental pressure and were also frustrated.

4. Support Services are best provided as a case-management, team approach, if they are to be effective in supporting schools. There really wasn't much happening in the way of team building. In fact, there was a great deal of conflict. There was a strong sense within the group that they had been neglected and that no one cared.

One member of the Support Services group described her feelings at that time,

"By September 2001, I had at various times and to various degrees felt annoyed, shocked, saddened, horrified, insulted, betrayed, ignored, angered, disgusted, appalled, apathetic, frustrated, resigned, hopeless, ashamed, deeply suspicious, paranoid, depressed, and occasionally ready to quit." (Karin Mertins, E-mail, November 2002)

Clearly we needed to address this. These were great people who felt disenfranchised, and if we didn't act we were bound to lose them in our district. Something needed to be done -- but what?

Thus emerged the question which forms the basis for my study -

How can I improve the delivery of Student Support Services to schools and to the students they serve?

I already recognized that improved service delivery could only begin to emerge once the Support Staff themselves felt more valued in our organization.

The Process

I have always admired and respected the work of Thomas Sergiovanni, and his metaphor that leaders need use both their heart and their head to guide their hands. (Ramsey, Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way, 1999) Jean McNiff, in her book, Action Research in Organisations refers to the same concept when she states that there is significant literature to suggest that cognitive learning should always be placed within experiential and affective learning (p. 47). In other words, we need to balance intellectual decision-making, with intuitive thinking/emotional intelligence and let the synergy of these two dimensions guide our actions.

In addressing the issues with respect to Student Support Services, this balance was truly necessary. First we had some functional, 'head'-type issues affecting us -- we had the disparity of service levels to schools, we had inconsistent job expectations for the same roles, we had wide variance in caseloads. It would have been easy, in some ways, to simply come up with a plan to fix these infrastructure issues, but by not addressing the 'heart' issues -- the trust, the relationships, the need for staff to feel a sense of belonging -- we would likely not bring about real, sustainable change.

Step 1: Listening

Truly listening isn't always easy, especially when, by nature, you are a talker (like me!). Also, when there is little trust, and people are unhappy, there is a great deal of venting that happens. As a school administrator, I learned that popularity is not a product of my job. In fact sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions to do the right thing. It is the Stephen Covey notion of "doing the right thing vs. doing things right" (Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, 1989). This is rarely easy.

At the beginning, I felt like everything I did with the Support Staff was wrong. There was a great deal of gossip and 'back room' discussion that occurred. A great deal came back to me, and to say I wasn't hurt would be untrue. " Heels were dug in...fear of change was diagnosed." (Laurie Pearson, E-mail, March 2003) But, my 'heart' understood their feelings of frustration, so I was prepared for some of it.

I learned a valuable lesson a long time ago -- if you are unhappy or sad, get busy. So, that was what we did.

Step 2: Heart and Head Guide Action -- Learning through Action

Building trust happens when people see the alignment between words and actions. I had listened to the variety of concerns the Support Staff had, but I realized that my role involved more than simply being a sympathetic ear. I needed to work with the group to go beyond simply pointing out the problems. Instead we needed to take it the next step, which is the development of possible solutions.

To begin the process of improving communication, I established regular monthly meetings with the entire Student Support Services group from the three areas as part of our regular practice. It seemed to be a way to assist in building relationships, and to ensure that common messages were being shared with all Support staff at all locations. At the very first meeting with the whole Student Support Services group in September 2001, I asked each subgroup (i.e. Psychological Consultants, Social Workers, Behaviour Counsellors, etc.) to break into groups and provide for me a brief job outline of their roles in support of schools. This exercise was very telling, as it was clear there were major discrepancies in role definitions between centres, and there were also some significant hard feelings between people over these discrepancies (Mary Lou Mackie, Personal Journal, September 2002). Also, having recently come from the role of Principal in a school, the confusion the Support Staff themselves had over their roles, meant to me, even more confusion for schools. It became very clear that something had to be done.

In an effort to address this, I decided to establish a committee, comprised of interested volunteers from the Support Staff. The purpose of the committee was to examine the concerns and to look for possible ways we could move towards solutions. The committee met regularly (approximately once a month) from October 2001 to March 2002, when the work of the committee was shared with the entire group and the proposal generated from the committee was vetted, and ultimately supported by Planning Council, Executive Council and the Board.

Although I organized the committee in an effort to work on solutions, the first step was to articulate the problems and there were two that emerged right away:

1. There were no Grand Erie job/role descriptions for Student Support services staff, so the specific nature of their job in support of schools was varied from location to location. People who had the same job title had different understandings about their job priorities, which was confusing and frustrating for them, and also confusing for schools. (Mary Lou Mackie, Personal Journal, September 2002)

2. Services between each centre were being provided in differing ways, by different staff. Not all schools in the board had access to all types of support services, and caseloads were different depending on the population of the area and the role definition. In essence, we did not have one model of Support Services for Grand Erie.

Once the problems were articulated, we began the task of fleshing out possible solutions. We first developed (from the work conducted at the first meeting with everyone) a general role definition for each sub-group within Support Services. This general role definition was a simple statement or two outlining the main area of focus for each group, for example:

Attendance Counsellor -- Duties would include working as a team with other Support Services to enforce compulsory attendance legislation, coordinate with legal/judicial system, liaise between home, school and community to advocate for students, with a focus on prevention by early intervention. (from A Grand Erie Approach to Student Support Services -- Delivery Model Proposal, May 2002)

These job role descriptions gave us a starting point for discussion as they provided a common understanding for all members of each sub-group of Student Support Services.

What I observed early in this discussion was that there was not only a lack of common understanding within each sub-group, but that lack of understanding of roles permeated throughout the group. Each person had an understanding of their role (which might not be the same as someone else with the same role) but there was also a decided lack of understanding between groups. For example, the Behaviour Counsellors didn't necessarily understand the role of Social Worker and how that role impacted their role (Mary Lou Mackie, Personal Journal, December 2002). This lack of mutual understanding between groups contributed further to an attitude of suspicion and a general feeling that workload was not fair and equal amongst groups.

Articulating job role descriptions helped each member of each sub-group begin to understand what schools needed from them, and also helped them see how their role fit within the context of the other Support Staff. It was a messy and not particularly friendly process, but it was an important first step. I should mention that the process of developing fully detailed job descriptions for each role within the Student Support Services continues at this time through the Human Resources department, so it has not yet been completed. But, by having the discussion with the Support Staff and sharing this between groups, we made important strides in helping everyone better understand their role and where they fit within the larger context. "I feel like we have grown past the dysfunctional family stage." (Karin Mertins, E-mail, November 2002)

The next step for the committee was reviewing the levels and nature of service available to schools through Support Services in each part of the Grand Erie District School Board. There were many emotional meetings about this, "After numerous meetings and frustrations" (Betty Finley, Personal Reflection, April 2003), but ultimately, a new model of delivery for Student Support Services was developed. It presented each job role with a recommended level of staffing at each centre, based on population. It also aligned each support centre so that all types of support were available to schools at all centres. In the end, the new model proposed an additional 13.65 FTE staff in the Student Support Services group.

I was optimistic that the model proposed was fair and represented the views of the Support Staff, but at one meeting, later in the school year, one member of the group was very vocal and criticized the model (Mary Lou Mackie, Personal Reflection, May 2002). I was very surprised because I believed the process had been transparent and the model was, in my mind, affirming to the Support Staff that they were valued and needed. However, I learned an important lesson when this happened. I had failed to check back enough with the group as a whole. While I had assumed that everyone was satisfied with the proposed model, based on the committee deliberations, I had not asked the group as a whole for their feedback. The strong objection was an indicator that I had missed a step in leading this group, and it caused me to pause and re-visit the concern. In fact, the concern expressed was valid. It was incorporated into the final proposal, and adjustments were made. The best part, when I look back on it, was at least there was enough of a comfort level to express the concern publicly so it could be addressed. The person raised it, and even though it was hard to take at the time, it indicated to me, that the trust factor was beginning to build. "People took risks to share their concerns knowing that Mary Lou wanted to hear what needed to change." (Betty Finley, Personal Reflection, April 2003) The staff was willing to publicly raise concerns, rather than simply talk about their concerns to each other where nothing could be addressed, and where hard feelings would continue to be fostered without any possible resolution. It was a good, if not easy, lesson.

Step 3: Implementation

Once the model was developed, there were many steps in vetting and presenting the model to a number of key stakeholder groups for input. It was presented several times to different groups, including Planning Council, Executive Council, the Board and eventually to Family of Schools Principals - so everyone understood the rationale for the new model and its implications for their practice. There were also some suggestions and recommendations that were incorporated into the model as this stage unfolded.

I felt throughout this process, a bit like an advocate for the Support Services staff, and each time I presented the model, I became more convinced of the many valuable services this group of people provides to our schools. I also came to appreciate how they sometimes feel like 'fish out of water' as their backgrounds are not in education, and yet they work in an organization that is all about education.

"At the beginning of amalgamation there was a keen sense, true or not, of a lack of appreciation of the level of skill and expertise which existed in the Support Staff. I think that since Mary Lou became Principal Leader, she has made a valuable effort to better appreciate the distinct perspective that each discipline brings to the delivery of student support services." (Laurie Pearson, E-mail, March 2002)

I began to see how that conflict was sometimes difficult for them. It certainly increased my understanding of their roles, and of their issues.

In May 2002, the Board approved the model in principle, and supported this approval by funding some of the additional positions recommended in the proposal right away. The rest of the funding to complete the rollout of the model has been approved in principle and the process of putting all the pieces in place continues. In December 2002, all areas of the board achieved alignment in the roles of Behaviour Counsellors and Social Workers. There are still some details being worked through as people assume these roles and schools develop their understanding in the value and services provided through these roles. However, it is the first main step in the implementation of the model, and hopefully, the remaining pieces (the addition of Child and Youth Workers) can happen early in the 2003-2004 school year.

I would like to comment here on what Michael Fullan refers to in his work as the "implementation dip" (Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change, 1991) -- the concept that implementation is not a linear process, rather it is more like a 'two steps forward, three steps back' type of process. Some of the early feedback we received from schools about the changes in the role of Behaviour Counsellors, for example, was not always positive. One teacher commented about the frustration they experienced in dealing with a student who had behaviour difficulties and trying to access Support Services staff to assist. They were concerned that the change in staff and their roles resulted in a lack of continuity of service for the child and expressed those concerns in a personal reflection:

"Also in early December, the Support System for behaviour students within the Grand Erie District School Board changed, and there were questions as to who was going to be responsible for assisting the school in dealings with this child: first one person, then another, then both." (L. Gibson, Personal Journal, December 2002)

Other concerns were expressed to me at a meeting of the Special Education/Student Support Services Principal's Advisory Committee in January 2003 (a committee that meets monthly to provide input and direction to central staff regarding Special Education and Student Support Services.) At this meeting, an elementary Vice-Principal was critical of the service being provided by the Behaviour Counsellors -- that they were not providing any valuable service to students. Another Principal articulated that "we had Behaviour Counsellors twenty years ago and they didn't work then. Why would we bring this back now?" (Meeting, January 2003)

There were explanations for these concerns. The Behaviour Counsellors in the area where the concerns were being raised had only come into the role three weeks prior, and there was still significant work to be done to clarify their services with schools. Also, for the Behaviour Counsellors themselves, we needed to clarify expectations, as these were new roles in one part of the district and we had to blend them with the existing levels of services. I believe we have continued to work on this. The Superintendent of the Family of Schools in this area, along with the Teacher Consultants and the Behaviour Counsellors developed a template for their role and shared this with schools. Also, I continued to attend Family of Schools meetings (with Principals and Vice-Principals) in each of the three areas of the district to provide clarification about the model.

Some of the frustration can also be attributed to the gradual rollout of the positions outlined in the model. In some parts of the district, service levels have been reduced to provide alignment in other areas. While this is only temporary, until the model can be fully implemented, it is hard for schools to understand this "short-term pain for long-term gain" when they feel students are suffering. I certainly respect and understand these sentiments.

My Own Learning -- Or teaching myself how to fish...

Whitehead, 1989 states

"My research generates a theory of myself. When I study my work as a manager I am potentially generating my own theory of management. When I work with others in organisations, I am potentially generating my own theory of organisation. If I share this theory with others, and they accept it and make it theirs, it becomes our theory and so publicly legitimated; it becomes a publicly acknowledged form of organisation theory." (Whitehead as quoted by McNiff, Action Research in Organisations, p. 14)

Whether I have generated a publicly acknowledged organizational theory remains to be seen, but I have generated own theory of organization. This theory is built on many precepts, some of which have been developed or reinforced as a result of the work done with the Support Staff and others in the development and early implementation of the aligned Student Support services model for Grand Erie. Some of the key parts of my own organisational theory are:

1. Patience is a virtue (one I need to continue to develop). It takes time to make significant change and taking time with the process is as important as the ultimate goal. I learned this through the committee work and in making the error in assuming everyone was on the same page with the change, when I hadn't taken the time to check back. The patience to ensure all the steps are followed is critical, especially for someone like me, who is results-oriented and can sometimes overlook the process in my quest for the product. Another lesson in patience for me has come from the vetting and sharing process. I wanted this done yesterday, but buy-in happens when more people share the vision and come to understand it. All of this takes time, but is worth it in the end.

2. In real estate, they say there are three rules to consider when purchasing a house and nothing else really matters -- location, location, location. My lesson has been that in working with people, there are three rules that are most important, and all else pales in comparison -- listen, listen, listen. For the consummate talker (me!), this has been something I must constantly work towards. "Mary Lou systematically went into action and strategically started gathering information. One of her greatest strengths is her ability to actively listen whiled simultaneously developing an action plan." (Betty Finley, Personal Reflection, April 2003)

This experience in working with Student Support Services, as well as my entire experience as Principal-Leader in Special Education/Student Support Services, has reinforced for me the value in listening. Listening involves both hearing and understanding -- and sometimes one has to listen not to the words, but to what drives the words.

"Above all, you have listened not only to the words but also to the feelings. The feedback that I have received, usually unsolicited, is that staff appreciate the amount of time and effort that you have put into building a better system and creating structures that make sense." (Jacqueline Delong, Annual Performance Appraisal of Mary Lou Mackie, June 2002)

Professional debate is important and validates others. People need to have their voices heard. This also speaks to the critical role that relationships play in organizations. As McNiff says, "If we get the relationships right the outcomes will look after themselves." (McNiff, Action Research in Organisations, p. 236)

3. Influence matters more than position. My role as Principal-Leader is one of influence, not authority. At first, I wasn't sure about this. I wasn't really sure why anyone would actually listen to me since no one really has to! Instead, I have learned the value of influence. It is more powerful, anyway. One of the Support Staff commented:

"You are a great role model as a powerful, intelligent and joyful woman. I admire that you do not misuse the authority that comes with the positions that you hold." (Karin Mertins, E-mail, November 2002)

While I am honoured by these positive feelings, I have to say that what I learned is I have very little authority -- and that is liberating. I can only influence others. Everyone fishes on their own for their own reasons -- I can't make them fish. I can encourage, I can support, I can show them how, I can lead them to the river -- but in the end, they have to choose to fish on their own. Hopefully, by providing them with the opportunity to participate in the journey they will learn and feel empowered. McNiff (2000) states,

"It is a manager's responsibility to enable others to learn how to do things for themselves and take responsibility for the potential implications of their own practice. Organisational development is informed by the desire of all participants to equip themselves with the knowledge, skills and attitudes that will contribute towards individual and collective growth." (McNiff, Action Research in Organisations, p.16)

I agree, and I believe this is fostered through influence, not authority.

4. Vision is important, but so is a map. People need a vision but they need to know how to work towards that vision. I always liked the Michael Fullan notion of "think globally, act locally," (Fullan, What's Worth Fighting For in Schools, 2000) and this experience has reinforced my belief in this. People need to know the vision, but the true capacity of a leader is to take the vision and help others break it down into steps so everyone can progress. As a leader it is my job to ensure that people know what they need to know in order to make informed choices. Part of what they need to know is the shared values and principles we have as a group so we can all frame our actions through this lens -organizationally putting our beliefs into practice.

"I feel more now than ever that I am working within an organization which does have clearer vision and direction and which better supports and respects what each of the support professionals within it can provide." (Laurie Pearson, E-mail, March 2003). Articulating these values and helping others understand these values is crucial for a leader, and I hope that I have been able to do this in my role as Principal-Leader, in this initiative with Student Support Services, and in other projects with which I have been involved.

A Teacher Consultant recently commented to me, after a regular monthly meeting with Student Support Services, about the improved nature of the meetings. She noted that there was more professional dialogue and genuine discussion, and a greater willingness to share ideas among the Support Staff. She commented that this is far different than her earlier recollections of meetings. (Janice Boose, Conversation, March 2003)

One member of the Support Staff summed it up this way:

"Imagine having staff meetings that include everyone! Too bad we do not have a device to measure emotional tension in the air. On a scale of one to ten, where one is no tension [or dead] and ten is danger zone [heart attack imminent] our first staff meeting in September 2001 would have rated as a fifteen. The most recent one fell at a healthy five -- you have to have some creative tension to keep things moving." (Karin Mertins, E-mail, November 2002)

Returning to the Question: How Can I Improve the Delivery of Student Support Services to the Schools and to the Students they serve?

In essence, if there is improved service delivery (and I have to admit that there is limited evidence to indicate that schools feel there is improved service at this time, due in large part to the implementation dip earlier discussed), it is through the work of the Student Support Services staff themselves. My role has been more to value the varied voices of these important professional members of our organization, and to help us all find a way to develop solutions from problems. I have learned about our organization, about my colleagues, about Special Education and Student Support Services, but most importantly, I have learned about myself.

References

Covey, Stephen. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Philadelphia: Running Press.

Fish! Video (2000). Minnesota: Charthouse Learning

Fullan, Michael (2000). What's Worth Fighting for in Schools? New York: Teacher's College Press.

Fullan, Michael (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teacher's College Press.

McNiff, Jean (2000). Action Research in Organisations. London: Routledge.

Ramsey, Robert (1999). Lead Follow or Get Out of the Way. California: Corwin Press.