Sticky Issues
printer friendly >
Sticky Issues Archive >
In this section, principals tell how they handled a challenging situation, how some policy that was in place actually worked, and the lessons learned from dealing with these Sticky Issues. Send your stories to principal@osu.edu. Please indicate if we may use your name in the “contributor” credits.
Navigating the “Turf Issue” When Repositioning Services
We had an opportunity at my school to house a major city recreation program for a year while the local recreation center was being remodeled. The city wanted to run the evening intramural programs in the school. The recreation staff would provide
- Equipment
- Staffing
- After school snack program and study tables for students to do homework
- Programs for children 6-12 until 6pm
- Programs for students 13-17 until 10pm
- Clean-up services
What was required from us was
- The gym space
- Office space
- A locking cabinet
- Help with sending out publicity
Since many of our students attended the program, it seemed like a “no-brainer” that this was a valuable service we could provide for our community.
The objections that arose took me by surprise. The staff members most affected by the evening program, the gym teacher, the nurse, and other faculty who used the office space next to the gym, the custodian and a few other faculty members worried that students would be running loose in the building causing havoc. I admit I had a rather naïve approach to the service that we were about to provide, but having met with the recreation staff, I had confidence that the agreements would be carried out as the contract specified. The major objections to the plan were as follows:
- THEY were not to use OUR equipment. It would get broken, stolen, lost or destroyed.
- THEY were not to have access to OUR books. THEY would take them or get them dirty.
- THEY were not to have access to OUR emergency records. THEY had to get their own information on students.
- THEY were not to dirty up OUR floors.
- THEY were not to use OUR office supplies. THEY had to have their own.
The cacophony of objections overwhelmed me at one point and I questioned my good sense. I found myself eliciting the support of the staff with a litany that resembled the following:
This school is a beacon of learning and activity that belongs to the community—not to us. We are the stewards of the resources on behalf of our constituents. The tax dollars pay for all of these materials, floors, lights, equipment, office space, etc. Our community has a right to the best resources available. We are fortunate that we are able to enter into a collaboration with another community resource provided, one that will keep our children off of the streets, provide after school supervision and programming and one that only requires cooperation from us and a meeting of small concessions. Our first responsibility is to our customers and not to our own convenience.
We took the necessary precautions to secure materials and address the concerns of some of the staff. It was widely recognized after a few weeks that the recreation program was a good thing, and there was a sense of collaboration and respect as the staffs grew to know each other and recognize that each had the best interest of the students at heart.
If I had it to do over again, I would have invited more of the staff into the initial talks with the recreation providers. We would have had more “Fierce Conversation” about our mission and the necessity of providing services for our students. What I learned is that what is apparent to me, may not be apparent to others. Also, others often have valuable insights to offer. When we put our heads together and have meaningful dialogue, we arrive at the best decisions!
