LOOKING BACK
Much has been attempted, much
needs to be done. Change is not an easy process. It is adventurous for those
who are willing to take the plunge, terrifying for those who aren’t, clear for
those who visualise, complex for those who implement. It involves finding
solutions for numerous unforeseen problems. The solutions may create new
problems...... but that is part of the constancy of change. Has it been worth
the time, trouble and expense?
Reactions are different.
Reflecting upon what was and what is involves delving into the participants’
own growth through this period of time. Individual members resistant to change
have had to be coaxed, cajoled, coerced and sometimes confronted with the
reality of change. Some members dropped
off while others joined this journey.
Change doesn’t come in neat
packages. There appears to be creative chaos and unless practitioners
consciously take a critical distance from current practices, it becomes
difficult to understand the processes that any change involves. Throughout this
document, an attempt has been made to recreate the past and juxtapose it with
the present to examine this process.
One attempt involved looking
at our fears. Talking to the teachers, management and team members about their
fears in this process of change helped in seeing emerging patterns. What were
our fears in 1989? Do they still exist ? If not, how did we deal with them ?
Fears
OUR
FEARS
The year was 1989 .....
|
What were the teachers
fears about change ? ¨ What is it .... this programme called S.I.P. ? ¨ I don’t understand what it involves. ¨ How can we do it with large class sizes ... ? ¨ Where’s the space & time ? ¨ Does a programme on School Improvement mean our schools “need” improvement ? ¨ How do we convince parents ? ¨ How about the education department, its rules ? ¨ What is the need for so many activities ? ¨ How do we complete the syllabus ? ¨ How do we teach differently -- We’ve not been taught differently ¨ Are we making guinea pigs out of our children ? ¨ Will our children be on a par with children from other schools ? ¨ How do we ensure that our children are learning ? ¨ How will our children manage ? ¨ Are we allowed to change strategies mid-course ? ¨ Whom do we go to if we don’t understand something ? ¨ Will we be heard ? ¨ How do we evaluate ? ¨ What do we evaluate ? ¨ Does this programme blunt the competitive edge ? ¨ Can we dare to be different ? ¨ Who is the reference point -- the Principal, the Project Director or the management ? ¨ How do we convince parents that percentages are not important ? |
|
The impleme- nters faced their own anxieties ¨ How do we motivate teachers ? ¨ Is attitudinal change possible ..... how ? ¨ We are providing facilities .... How much are they being utilised ? ¨ If teachers become this assertive ... would they lose respect for authority ? ¨ Dare we invest large sums on structural changes ? ¨ How do we get teachers to reflect upon their own teaching ? ¨ What should be the strategy in dealing with the Education Department ? ¨ How is all this to be sustained ? ¨ At what level in the system are problems best solved ? ¨ How do we continuously improve ? |
The
year was 1991 ...............
What
were our fears ?
|
Teachers ¨ Concern of the Primary teachers ...... Our children can’t read. ¨ Should children sit on the floor ? ¨ Its spoiling their handwriting, could it damage their spine ? Can all students face the blackboard ? |
|
Implementors ¨ How do we empower the principals to take on the SIP. ¨ How do we sustain the remedial Unit ? Its members are anxious about job security. ¨ Would teachers be willing to experiment and move up with their classes ? ¨ Issues of transition are the secondary teachers confusing free discipline with indiscipline ? ¨ Should discipline tickets be given for cases of indiscipline ? ¨ Does the giving of such tickets insult the child ? ¨ The planning time provided to the teachers is it being effectively utilised ? ¨ Should Primary children have a shorter day ? If we reduce timings is it right to send children from disadvantaged backgrounds back early ? ¨ Would they lose out on having a longer
period of learning environment? ¨ Do longer school hours really benefit children ? |
|
Principal ¨ What do we do with all the furniture that is no longer in use in the classrooms -- where do we store it ? ¨ Is there a provision for sponsoring teachers who need training ? ¨ Can we afford to have such a turnover of teachers ? What happens to all the training given to them ? |
The initial fears in 1989 seem to deal with the “what”, “how”, “why” & “where” issues that assail implementers when anything new is to be undertaken. Maybe it stems from a fear of the unknown, a fear of taking a risk, a fear of failure. A little later, around midway through’91, the issues seem to be dealing with structure and systems, anxieties with regard to children, beginnings of reflection on the consequences of their decisions on children. It could be that the fears had arisen out of a lack of conviction in what they were doing. Not every member felt equally convinced that the decisions taken were the “right” ones. There mid-way fears reveal a growing clarity and expression of what our needs are.
As we move to the year 1995, the vocabulary appears to change. The issues no longer are viewed as “fears”, they are viewed as concerns. Also, there is a broader view -- the focus widens and includes issues dealing with the larger education system. The ability to distance from current implementation and view the programme ‘holistically’ in the larger context, seems to be growing.
Changes in the nature of concerns over time reveal that initially in 1989 the heads and teachers were at the same level of anxiety. However by 1991 the Principals’ struggles had become slightly different. They had begun to feel responsible for instituting the structures required. The teachers too appear to have more confidence in what they were doing within the classrooms. By 1996, there were areas where the concerns of the key participants - the teachers, the principals and the implementers began to merge. The players began to show ownership of portions of the programme, and there was a gradual sharing as a prelude to “taking over” those areas of responsibility.
Examining these fears it would appear that SIP has in the initial phase struggled with the stages of building an awareness, providing more information and dealing with the personal effect on individuals. Towards the end of Phase I the concerns shift to management of time, materials and organisational details. The efforts at problem solving, reaching a shared understanding become more possible in the Second Phase when structures like co-ordination systems have been put into place and the whole process of getting groups to work together commenced. Not all sections of the school have moved simultaneously. The sections where the Programme has impacted the longest are the ones that appear to have dealt with them most effectively.
In the final analysis, as I reflect upon change as the D.J. schools experienced
it and my own attempts at fitting the myriad pieces of its jigsaw, I come upon
the question that I raised time and again..........What is SIP? From amongst the
many images created, a few remain to encapsulate what SIP really is all about. I leave them for the reader to reflect upon.
WHAT IS SIP ?
CHILDREN
COMING TOGETHER,
SHARING
JOYS, LOVELY OPPORTUNITIES,
CREATING
SPACES, ALLOWING CHILDREN TO LEARN,
A
FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT ............ TO MAKE MISTAKES,
LOTS
OF MATERIALS, MANY CHANGES,
WORKING
THROUGH A MUDDLE, COPING WITH INABILITIES,
RUBBING
CORNERS, RUBBING PEOPLE,
A
MELTING PROCESS .......... FLUIDITY, POSITIVE ENERGY FLOW
A
CHALLENGE ......... CHOICE ........... COURAGE ...
AN
INITIATIVE TO CHANGE
MOMENTS
OF MIRTH, MOMENTS OF DESPAIR,
BLENDING
OF REFLECTION AND ACTION,
A
CHANGE FROM WITHIN NOT OUTSIDE .........
YOU
CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.