Observing my context (January 27, 2017)

Observing my context (January 27, 2017)

On January 27, 2017, I observed my setting during a collective meeting where we celebrated an instructor's permanent status achievement along with presentations from selected instructors and the advising team (me). I began observing at 8:30 am. The executive director was giving an introduction and detailing the agenda. At 9 am, we began having breakfast and we were instructed to interact with someone we do not work with regularly. Essentially, instructors and staff should mingle and get to know each other. Initially, staff members sat with their known colleagues and instructors collected in a separate group. The executive director, the dean of instruction, and I encouraged the two groups to disperse and mingle. Eventually, everyone began to sit with someone opposite their role and communicate as instructed. Once staff and faculty began to converse with each other, they found the communications both eye opening and rewarding. Many of the faculty were still familiar with some of our former student services team members. This was a great opportunity to connect with the new employees. Likewise, seasoned staff members were able to learn of the new faculty members. I sat with one of our instructors who has been with the program for a very long time. She learned that I had been promoted to a new position. I have been in this position for more than 18 months. She vaguely remembered an email but it had not registered with her at the time. I discovered she had been a member of the armed services for five years before separating in 1989. We discussed some of the challenges and enjoyments of working with students affiliated with the military in our varied capacities. It was a great conversation and I observed many such conversations with others in the room. 

At 9:30 am, we moved into the presentation portion of the morning. It started with a presentation from our director of behavioral intervention. Both faculty and staff found the presentation helpful in clarifying what they should do in challenging situations with students. There were several questions about working with students who are pregnant. Many instructors and staff felt handcuffed in how to work with these students with regard to how far they should extend when attempting to support them and at which point they should contact someone for more support. One of the instructors, stated publicly that advisors should learn to encourage students who are pregnant to take classes after their pregnancy. This comment was taken as an affront and one advisor approached me at the end of the gathering to express her frustrations. I too found the comment to be a bit one-sided and inaccurate, but I refrained from commenting at that time. 

At 10:15 am, one of our math faculty provided a presentation on our new seven credit developmental math course where she detailed the content, assignments, and philosophy of instruction. Once again she and other faculty members commented on what advisors should do. Once again, advisors took offense to the perceived attack on our practice. At 11:00 am, another instructor discussed the content, assignments, and philosophy of instruction for our college success course. Again, the instructors intimated how the advisors should construct student schedules. I followed, introducing our advising team members, explaining our approach to student success, and addressing some of the comments made earlier with clarification. I do not know that it was very fruitful. 

The event started very strong with optimism. However, it quickly devolved into something a little more than unpleasant. One advisor felt that it was an unfounded attack on our practice. As I reflected on it, I became a little unsettled with the entire exchange. It clearly articulated an opportunity for more relationship building within our program. There are some clear communication gaps and some devaluing of contributors that can only be addressed through continued intentional connections. The separate nature of the individual units of our program appear to have caused some significant chasms that may affect the student experience. We need further investigation of the chasms within the administrative, staff, and faculty units to improve our workplace interactions and our service to students. 

DFS Week 8 Reaction

In my directed field study with Dr. Irey, I found that she is a passionate leader committed to learning and growth. This passion and commitment has been with her throughout her career in the classroom and in a multitude of student services roles. During her dissertation work, she found that persons of color and members of other underserved groups were not being valued well, nor were they being adequately prepared for leadership roles. She took her research to her president and began the journey that has become the Social Justice Leadership Institute (SJLI). In communicating with her over the past several weeks, I gained an understanding how to engage internal and external stakeholders, dig into the available resources for clarity and depth, stay committed to teaching and learning, and value the perspectives of others including those with points of view we do not readily appreciate.

I met with Dr. Irey over the seven-week semester through face-to-face, telephonic, and semistructured workshop interactions. In our initial meetings, we discussed my plan of study and the incites that I hoped to gain from the experience. We discussed her recent change in position and we touched on her current work briefly and she recommended that I do a bit of research about the situation she was working with the college to rectify.

What did I gain? Dr. Irey is impassioned and dedicated leader. She admits that mistakes are a part of the work but she conducts self-assessments 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. I gleaned the following from her responses:

1. Stay committed to the goal.
2. Communicate consistently and value all points of view.
3. Take the time to do research before giving an inadequate answer.
4. Communicate with knowledgeable others for clarity and depth.
5. Engage internal and external resources for support.

The greatest gain from these interactions was flexibility and understanding. When I listened to Dr. Irey discuss her responses to student issues and her communications with the college cabinet, I heard her primary focus on the spread of learning with regard to diversity and inclusion. I also gained an understanding for how she was able to adhere to multiple laws and college policy and still communicate her mission of educating the college community about the importance of diversity and inclusion. Her patience and understanding is also a skill that I can appreciate as I begin to develop my implementation plan for my PoP innovation.

DFS Week 7 Reaction

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.