Actividades de la escuela

There was a transition to a new principal in the pilot year, which added a new challenge to the school. Paula B., the former principal, left her position before the pilot year began in 2009. At the beginning of the year this caused some fear among the staff because Paula B. had been such a strong advocate and facilitator with Shelburne Farms in prior years. The district did not make the decision, it was a personal decision unrelated to the pilot year or the transition from LB into the SA. The new principle that was hired came out of retirement specifically for the job at the SA. She felt her understanding of sustainability came more from an internal way in which she understood life and she said

90

that after she looked into the job she felt: “this is a job I can do. I saw this job and this job was made for me. This is the only job on the planet that would get me to work full time again…to be principal of a sustainability magnet school. I like things that are just started. I like venturing into the unknown. I like bringing people together to fulfill a dream.”

In the summer before the pilot year of the SA the principal of the SA participated in a ‘democratic decision making’ professional development session led by Shelburne Farms. It was voluntary but a good majority of the staff attended the session. The focus of the session was to provide leadership and understanding around how decisions are made and can be made at a school. Rather than receiving marching orders from top leadership such as from the superintendent or a principal, the idea was that a leadership committee could be formed where concerns and recommendations could be channeled up from parents, students, and educators to the leadership level and then the leadership level could respond accordingly. In addition, leaders could implement a democratic process by which educators, parents, students and the school community could provide input with respect to certain decisions. This input could then inform the leadership as to the best course of action. The new principal felt that although she approached sustainability from what she said was a “heart place” she had begun to read with others about cases and other

examples of sustainability in education to understand the theory. There was desire on her part to become a stronger presence in curriculum development even though she realized that the school had in place a strong system before her arrival and she trusted the ability of the staff 100%. Without an assistant principal, a good majority of the principal’s day was spent in dealing with behavioral issues at the SA. With such a tight budget, she did

91

not see how BSD would be able to staff an assistant principle so that the principal position could focus more on visionary and supportive leadership for the staff. The principal said she did not want to be the “final decision maker at the end of the road that could veto someone else’s ideas.” She wanted to provide a process where she could facilitate and support ideas to fruition. She advocated practices such as a ‘dotmocracy’ exercise facilitated by SF that allowed SA staff, parents and coordinators to participate in a democratic process of selecting and prioritizing goals and visions for the SA for the next five years. This process allowed more collaboration, rather than the principal deciding what would be focused on, which is typical in most public education settings. The principal at the SA said she wanted to be “an enabler and not a person who squelches peoples work”. She defined her leadership style as collaborative: “there are some

decisions that are collaborative, there are some decisions that I will seek input on, and there are some decisions I need to make all on my own.” An example of this sentiment on a practical level was about who makes the decision for which kids are in which class following the pilot year. The principal developed a form and laid out a process for the staff to follow. The form was based on balance and served more as a guideline with criteria for success. Ultimately, she wanted the final decision to come from the staff with her guidance and input. She invited input on designing the form and the process and then provided a structure that everyone could use. Overall, the principal felt it was important to be invested in the process more so than the outcomes. She wanted to see systems developed that could be used from year to year so that everyone could follow a known process. One of the initial setbacks in the pilot year of trying to actualize democratic

92

governance was miscommunication, which created barriers to success. For example, in the beginning of the pilot year, a group of teachers put together a proposal of changes that were needed and submitted it to the district without getting any input from the principal. This act created an issue because the principal did not get a chance to review the

document, provide any feedback, or have any knowledge of it when confronted by the district.