The Need for RUE Followers, not Rule Followers: The Difficulty of Change

Educational change -- in structures, in mindsets, in technology -- seems inescapable, but certainly has become even more so in the last two years.   To be frank, during the pandemic, it has often been painful and not necessarily welcome.  To take one example, I know very few teachers that Zoomed and Google Met and Microsoft Teamed with students that would prefer such distance learning over face-to-face teaching, and yet almost all would have to admit how their edtech skill sets have grown immensely through our trial by fire...and that such teleconference tools can still maintain and build relationships in the absence of in person contact.

It was while reflecting on the challenges of change that led me to envisioning the following pairs of competing states of what is current and what is desired in a school or district.  I certainly don't want to suggest an oversimplification of the process of going from traditional to transformative structures as merely a dichotomy or a false either/or dilemma.   Nor do I want to diminish the real pain of teachers just struggling with the daily grind who understandably may be a bit reluctant to take on a project of change that requires significant energy or commitment.   A recent must-read article in Education Week (9/14/21) from Madeline Will points out that "Teachers are Not OK, Even Though We Need Them to Be."   Sixty percent of teachers are always or frequently stressed from their work; only nine percent never or rarely are.  (On the other hand, urgent change in the structures or admin side of education may be just what the doctor ordered to avoid our teachers burning out.)

But in this entry, I humbly suggest that when considering how to move ahead in your organization, these pairs can help you determine where you are and how to get to where you want to be.

Complain versus Come Plan

What is the purpose of your meeting?  Change clearly requires discussion, and such time is valuable.  It is also valuable to seek honest input in order to improve.  However, if members of an organization spend more energy on vetting issues than ideating solutions, it creates two fundamental problems.  The first is obvious: if a meeting ends with no action step(s) to at least attempt a change, you may be just treading water until the next get-together to vent again -- worse, the issue will grow even more malignant in the time between.   The second is more subtle of a problem but in some ways more damaging: stewing in the negativity with no way out, the members will feel further unempowered and victimized (and stressed!) by the challenges around them rather than efficacious with a sense of agency.

If you need to meet to have a venting session or gather critical feedback, do so.  However, when planning your meeting, ask, "Are we coming together to plan a solution, or to complain?"  At least there will not be disappointment or lack of clarity in a "complain meeting" that ends by achieving its stated purpose.

When you ask someone to come plan with you, you are actually saying, "I know you have great skills and knowledge to bring to the table.  I value you and know you can help us solve this problem -- I can't do it alone, and I can't do it without you."  That's a much more empowering and inspiring meeting!

Of course, planning together between admin and teachers must be a genuine collaborative experience with as flat of a hierarchy as possible.  For example, if admin offer solutions, they need to be willing to take feedback from teachers and adjust the (not "their"!) plans accordingly.  The value of each stakeholder's input should be equal when pursuing a solution -- or alternatively, equitable according to each member's experience, wisdom, and the amount each contributor will gain or lose when the decision is made.

Accountability versus Counting on Ability

Accountability is a word bandied about in organizational structures, which often translates into a simple dictum: "Do your job."  It's asking a person to fulfill the description of the position they were hired to do, and without it, responsibilities might not be clear and supervisory evaluations could not be properly done. 

However, "do your job" has its limits.  It certainly is not an inspiring mantra or a rallying cry.  When real change is necessary, it can be a first step toward a better future -- but it is slow and can feel like a mallet instead of a scalpel in its effectiveness.

What if instead of compelling or forcing a person to be accountable, you count on a person's strengths and talents?   "Javier, I know I can count on your ability to dream up edtech strategies for project-based learning.  Once you share those with your school's teachers, I know that the numbers of students involved in PBL will really start accelerating."  Change happens when we have a positive presupposition that our collective abilities can meet our challenges and overcome them -- or at the very least, we have the ability to grow.

Rule Followers versus Rue Followers

When we seek for people to be compliant, we settle for a low bar.  Rules and threats of negative consequences can create compliancy, but that will never create a true culture of transformation.   

Would you rather have rule followers or rue followers?  Rule followers will be safe and maintain the status quo.   They are usually afraid of risk, which makes innovation impossible.  They will see change as a threat ("if I don't learn the new rules, I'll get in trouble") and spend more energy seeking to codify new boundaries in order to stay within the new norms.  Of course, it's important to differentiate between rules that are bureaucratic and are often only justified with the shrug shoulder response of "It's always been done this way" with actual laws and policies that are put in place for the sake of safety and well-being. 

On the other hand, consider that "Rue" is defined as both a verb (to feel sorrow, remorse, regret) and a noun (regret, sorrow).   Difficult change, especially for a traditional-bound system like public education that has stayed virtually the same for more than a century, requires urgency.  Why attempt such an arduous challenge unless you are highly motivated to do so? Personally, I know my own first steps to change my teaching started with regret and remorse.  I felt sadness, even shame, that I had not reached all of my students, that they did not grow in academics or maturity as I had hoped.  I regretted that as a teacher, I had not done a better job.  That left me with a stark choice.  As my next high school year began, I could have either taught the same way and have one hundred and fifty students once again not reach their potential, or try something different.  The urgency to do the latter seemed clear.  That is not to say that change is all doom and gloom!  We transmute remorse into joy when we are efficacious, especially if we consider the classic example of Mihaly Csikszentmihályi's idea of "flow."   The trick for organizations attempting to transform teaching is to tap into that educator's (self) interest as well as provide the proper scaffolding and support (professional development, practice time, models, mentors, etc.) for all to succeed.

By following your regret, you are really following your heart.  Instead of a remote, objective approach to staying within the lines of a compliant culture, you feel an emotionally charged subjective need to be a part of a transformative culture, and to do it now rather than later.  

In closing, I do not want to imply that myself personally or that my district are completely on the perfect side of this change ledger (or fully on the other side, for that matter!).   After all, change is a journey, not a destination, and we are all likely somewhere in the messy middle of the change continuum.  But if we can offer some clarity on where we are at and where we want to arrive, we can take that journey more effectively.   I hope this entry provides leadership some lenses in order to consider those next steps.