Directed Field Study Week 7 Reaction
This week I
asked my mentor about her implementation of the Social Justice Leadership
Institute initial cohort, and its obstacles before and after implementation.
She also discussed the differences in the cohorts both intended and purely by
happenstance.
What was your implementation plan?
Timeline?
Social Justice
Leadership Institute had no initial timeline. Based upon research during her
dissertation work, Dr. Irey found that there were some significant gaps in the
training and professional development of persons of underserved groups,
particularly persons of color. On her own initiative and personal mission, Dr.
Irey sought endorsements from other colleges and her president for support. She
received support from three presidents including her own. They added the
initiative to their agendas in June 2014. A month later the presidents asked
her to implement the program immediately. She had a 1 ½ to disseminate
information and to distribute and compile participant forms.
What were the obstacles prior to
implementation?
Obstacle one was
a transition from no timeline at the start to a short timeline once
endorsements and approval for implementation were gained. Some presidents were
supportive while others were not. Some potential participants may not have had
an opportunity to apply to the initial SJLI cohort.
Obstacle two was
being a trailblazer. No such program in the state. There are two leadership
programs within the state, Leading from the Middle sponsored by the Washington
State Board of Community and Technical Colleges and the Washington Executive
Leadership Academy. These programs have some gaps and they do not adequately
articulate the challenges facing people of underrepresented groups seeking
advancement within higher education. Because of these gaps, the state board found
the program refreshing and needed. As a result, the program received an
endorsement from the state board after two successful cohorts.
What were the challenges following
implementation?
Some challenges
following implementations and two successful cohorts: the program is run by one
person (Dr. Irey); the program is supported continuously by her home college
with some support from a few presidents.
What was the makeup of the cohort?
Initial 20
participants (cohort 1) were chosen intuitively and they were a little older
with a focus on African American leaders and staff and other persons of color
and sexual orientation. I did not ask if gender was a focus, although most
participants were female. Most institutions who participated only sent one
person. Traditional email communication was the way of staying connected for
this initial cohort. Tokenized applicants were declined.
Second group of
20 participants (cohort 2) were chosen with staff and leaders, greater focus on
sexual orientation, and persons of Asian descent. Social media was more
prevalent among this group. This cohort was a bit younger but that was by pure
accident. More groups were sent in this cohort. Additionally, more schools
participated after seeing the difference in the participants once they returned
to their home institutions. Dr. Irey believes that groups benefit the students
and the institution. The students are able to develop a support group within
their institution. The institution gains more strength, courage, confidence,
and competence within its workforce.
What is the next step? What is the
overarching goal of the program?
The next step is
transitioning the program to a self-run/self-support program. Dr. Irey would
like to see the program grow from endorsements to adoption and remain a continuous
professional development program for aspiring leaders of all distinctions.
Dr. Irey’s
primary objective is to develop 100 SJLI graduates and have them permeate the
Washington Community and Technical College system. The hope is that they will
obtain position power and change the dynamic of school leadership and become
more representative of the student population. Additionally, more persons of
underserved groups will be drawn to school leadership.
Dr. Irey would
like to see school leadership grow away from the tradition of white
heterosexual approach to leadership as the only accepted leadership approach.
She would like to see school leadership grow to appreciate the leadership approaches
of persons of color, women, LBGTQ, and all of our other social distinctions. Moreover,
she would like to see members of these underserved groups take the next step toward
moving beyond survival and growing into thriving leaders.
What did I gain?
Dr. Irey found a
passion and a cause. She has remained steadfast throughout. She admits that
mistakes were made but she evaluated her program and self-assessed throughout.
She has made adjustments with each cohort and she will install improvements for her next cohort. Dr.
Irey had some early adopters. Once the other institutions who did not believe
in the validity of the program saw the impact the program had on its
participants, they began to participate and send participants in greater
numbers. Finally, Dr. Irey has a “gut-smacking” goal, which a key concept from
Heath’s and Heath’s (2010) Switch.
That goal is to develop 100 potential change leaders within the community and
technical college system. Her hope is that these 100 cohort members will form a
network and ongoing support group. Additionally, they will have the tools,
confidence, and courage to seek and enact change within their local contexts.