Effective Communication for District and School Administrators by Kowalski Theodore J.;

Author:Kowalski, Theodore J.; [Kowalski, Theodore J.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Published: 2015-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

These difficulties are explored in detail later in this chapter.

Closed and Open Climates

The most common descriptor of school climate pertains to orientations toward internal associations and associations with the external environment (i.e., the ecosystem in which the school exists). The extremes are a closed climate and an open climate. Differences between the two are exemplified by the disparate behavior of two boards of education in neighboring districts. The first board meets once a month on a Saturday at 8:00 a.m. in the superintendent’s conference room, a small area not large enough to provide seating for visitors. Only on rare occasions are visitors, including district employees, allowed to speak at these meetings. Typically, the meetings are over by 9:15 a.m., and then board members and the superintendent go to a local diner for breakfast.

The second school board meets at least twice a month on Tuesday evenings at 7:00 p.m. The location is purposefully rotated, allowing each of the district’s five schools to host a minimum of three board meetings per year. Refreshments are provided, and visitors are allowed to ask questions, make comments, or suggest improvements.

Conditions in the first district, such as an inconvenient meeting time, an inadequate location, and a minimum number of meetings per year, are indicative of a closed climate. Conditions in the second district, such as a convenient meeting time, a rotated location, refreshments, and interactive discussions, are indicative of an open climate.

In the past, school officials often tried to preserve a closed climate because of negative views toward conflict. More recently, astute administrators recognized that restricting legal, social, political, and economic influence is not prudent. Constraining citizen involvement is undemocratic, and eliminating external interventions in an information-based society is basically unachievable (Kowalski, 2013). Stakeholders in most districts want administrators to lead, but they insist on being included in open and fair debates about ideas and administrative recommendations (Baker, 1997).

Schools rarely are completely closed or open climates; instead, their climates are skewed toward one pole or the other. In a closed climate, employees are disengaged, suspicious, and isolated, the principal is directive, remote, and nonsupportive, and external interventions are resisted as a probable source of conflict (Hanson, 2003). For instance, administrators committed to a closed climate believe that employees drawn into disagreements either internally with coworkers or externally with parents, government agencies, or special interest groups spend less time performing their assigned duties. As such, conflict reduces technical efficiency (Hanson, 2003). In an open climate, collegiality, interaction, and external interventions are not only tolerated, they are also encouraged, primarily because conflict is viewed in a positive light. For example, administrators committed to an open climate treat conflict as a catalyst for needed change. Explaining this disposition, Uline, Tschannen-Moran, and Perez (2003) wrote:

Conflict is a natural part of collective human experience. In our efforts to cooperate with one another, we have differences of opinion about how best to accomplish our common goals. We seek to protect our individual interests within these efforts and forestall outside influences, fearing discord in the face of these conflicting forces.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.