Due: 22nd August
He maurea kai whiria!
Ignore small matters and direct effort toward important projects.
Module 10 is brought to you by Serena Cooper and Aaron Ironside. This half-hour interview on Consensus Building has some really great tips for inclusive participation that engages and empowers a group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEftUh3uZQ&t=15s
Provocation:
Consider a time when consensus was gained over an important decision. What did the leader do to gather and process divergent points of view? Please share your thoughts in 150 words or less.
26 Responses
As a PB4L-SW leader, there were many times when decisions had to be made about systems that would affect everyone at the school. One such decision was the implementation of a tangible token system for house points. There were many strong views that had to be taken into consideration, for example, some members of the team wanted plastic tokens that could be placed into clear containers so that students could see their progress. Others were against having a tangible reward due to the effort required to sustain and resource this. Consensus was developed over time with this. It was important to hear all of the views initially and make sure everyone contributed, but then table the conversation so that more research could be done. We made sure to revisit the conversation in a timely manner – in this case the next meeting. After the research had been done, the team were able to see the most viable option clearly. In the end, this was a middle ground option that everyone felt comfortable ‘selling’ to the rest of the school.
With many changes to both people and processes at my school this year, the realities of differing personalities and viewpoints has been hugely evident and consensus building has been an integral strategy in ensuring that these changes have been navigated smoothly.
The most recent example of consensus needing to be gained was with the decision to change from an already well established structured literacy approach school wide to signing up with the MOE’s offering for training and funding using BSLA. As the leader of literacy within the school, and the person who had researched, established and set up our current SL programme I had resistance along with a few of my colleagues. To navigate this our leader ensured that there was an open conversation about the possible change where the voices of all staff members were heard and understood, expertise was valued and sought as a key factor in decision making, and the buy-in of all who would be affected by the decision was established through providing a solid ‘why’ as well as time for them to process and clarify the change. By listening to all voices our leader was able to learn and moderate the plan of action based on the team’s understanding and was able to meet their needs and values, providing leadership opportunities and ensuring the change would be smooth with limited impact on preparation and practice.
A really useful tool Sarah, thank you for sharing
A few years ago we, as a leadership team, realised our teachers were doing awesome timetables but no real solid planning to sit in behind it. So we put it to the staff, “What should be included in planning?” The teachers sat in their teams and brainstormed, went away and trialled it for a couple of weeks. We then got everyone together and created a Non-negotiable Planning Document. This is a very clear document that teachers themselves designed. There are no “winners or losers” in this situation. We had the experts in the room and the leadership team listened carefully to what was being discussed. All of the teachers knew what was necessary for great planning – they now have a document that they co-constructed and own. Planning is now done alongside this ‘checklist’ of what is required for awesome teaching and learning. Twice a term team leaders conduct planning checks with this document as a guide to give feedback & feedforward. By allowing teachers to co-construct expectations this allowed a consensus on the implementation of improved planning for teaching and learning. As a result there is now very little need for next steps when planning has been checked by team leaders.
What a solid and powerful example, Johanna, from the consultation process to maintaining and sustaining the outcomes
Recently we reviewed our break times at school. This came about after discussions about fitting in literacy and numeracy into the morning. Previously we had trailed a whole school timetable – but this wasn’t working for a variety of reasons. To start the process we found out other school break times and presented these to staff along with our current timetable. These were shared ahead of the staff meeting discussion. At the meeting everybody had the opportunity to share. They were also shared with our teaching assistants and they had the opportunity to contribute their ideas. Following everybody having the opportunity to meaningfully contribute. We formulated 3 possible timetables to share back. Staff were able to vote for their preferred option or provide written feedback on any concerns of others. The new timetable was implemented at the beginning of the following term.
This process allowed for consensus building and showed that others ideas were valued and actively listened to. I liked Aaron’s comment at the end “There is more information in the room than what is in my head, consensus building involves putting aside your own ideas and listening to those of others”
Great example, Leanne, including the choice process that created ownership
During the Strategic Plan refresh for 2025, the Principal took care in selecting the right people to be involved, bringing together the Board of Trustees, Heads of School, and Heads of Learning to ensure the necessary expertise was in the room. A neutral, off-site location was chosen to create a sense of equality, which was crucial in fostering open and honest discussions. Structured thinking tools like PESTLE and SCOT analysis were used to start with a broad view before gradually narrowing the focus, helping the group move naturally towards consensus. By regularly mixing small and whole group discussions, the Principal ensured that every voice was heard and understood. Anchoring the work in the Vision statement was key, as it reminded everyone of their shared purpose. This process allowed the Principal to guide the team towards a decision that truly reflected the collective input of everyone involved.
Very inclusive and effective process, Abi
In the current climate of change with the Curriculum Refresh it has been important to listen to what the staff are feeling. At a recent PLD a speaker mentioned that in a meeting we should have an ’empty chair’ for the voices not present. As such in our SLT team meeting we consider the voices of those not present. And so we planned our 2024 PLD schedule taking into account the changes and the needs of the staff. The whole team was keen to have a every Tuesday afternoon slot in Terms 1 and 2 for a lot fo front loading with all the changes coming through so we could be top of our game with NCEA Level 1 and the C-Requisites. IN terms 3 and 4 we have greater autonomy as to what the Tuesday PLD time will look like. It is much lighter commitment with at least 8 sessions of personal time planned into the schedule. This has really lifted staff morale. Getting this consensus at the start of te year meant we were able to work towards a shared goal with shared understanding.
Oh I love that idea – the empty chair! It’s so easy to get caught up in who and what is in front of you
As with changes in the Science curriculum and Level 1 standards, there has been a lot of ‘new’ and this has caused some trepidation amongst older staff. Too much change, too little time. We have managed this situation by actively listening, both in person and through written feedback to the concerns and worries of staff. Managing change is tricky as there are always historical issues to deal with, but it was managed by listening and offering support. As Aaron says, the feelings of others need to be considered and this was done, they were listened to and their worries were heard. Although not everyone agreed in the way we chose to proceed, it was managed in a way that people felt heard and it was left as a ‘trial’, which means that we can come together as a department to talk through the year later in term 4, to consider how to make it even better in the future. This helped to ease the fears and allow people to focus on this year, knowing changes could be made in the future. So far so good.
Flexibility and openness go a long way!
Kia ora koutou.
I’m going to flip this provocation a bit and apply these ideas from the video to an upcoming meeting, rather than reflecting on a historical situation.
As an ASL within our Kāhui Ako I have been tasked with running a meeting for all our different kura’s DPs and APs. The objective of the meeting is to review and update our Achievement Challenges. With the current political climate and lack of clarity from the MOE, this will be challenging.
Some take away ideas from the video that I hope to employ include;
* Does full consensus have to be the goal for every point? Is it okay to get to a point of agreement, without everyone agreeing to everything? (what are the non negotiables and what can we live with?)
* Having an agreed ‘code of conduct’ about how decisions will be made. Setting guidelines for fairness and enabling a variety of voices and perspectives to be heard
* Ensuring that the Tumuaki/ kura representatives know that it truly is a collaborative intention. We’re not trying to convince others of an already decided course of action and going through the motions.
Wish me luck!
Ngā mihi,
Claire
Look forward to discussing the outcomes with you at some point, Claire
Our school went through a large exercise at the end of last year where we all got to contribute our perspectives on what our priorities around the school were. In the hall, our principal got us to write down what we thought should stop, should start or should change. Obviously, there wasn’t full consensus in the beginning, there was a lot of disagreement, but we were able to find common points of view. There were also multiple groups that formed to delve deeper into aspects that were of greater importance. As Aaron mentioned, there was evidence of our contributions in the final summary. Even if we didn’t agree with the final outcome in some instances, there was no doubt that everyone had some part to play in sharing our views and being heard.
‘Shift’ can as important as consensus, when identifying a way forward.
About 5 years ago our staff had a PD day with a facilitator who asked what our school vision was. None of us could answer as our vision statement at the time was about 50 words long and contained a bunch of cliche education speak that sounded lovely, but didn’t really mean anything to us, or as it turned out, the kids.
Following that day our leadership team began the process of setting a new and clear vision for the school going forward. This happened over a term and started with presentations and discussions about the importance of a clear vision for us and the school community. There were multiple meetings, both formal and informal, plenty of post-its, involvement from the children and community and time for reflection. When we started to drill down to some key phrases and words we would leave these on bits of paper in the staffroom to prompt casual discussion amongst staff. In the end, it all became pretty clear and our new school vision was launched.
Giving the process time, along with multiple opportunities for each person to have input helped build consensus. The main thing though was that ‘winning’ wasn’t about being the person who had the words that would become our school’s vision statement, ‘winning’ was about having a vision statement that anyone in our school could understand, own and articulate.
Great process Peter, and good to hear the shared ownership, across the school, as an outcome
My examples are more school wide shifts and how consensus was gained. This relates to Aarons comment about not everyone having to be involved in collaboration. The first was a timetable change. A group of interested staff were called upon to collaborate on how this might look (there was decent time spent here) – this was presented to Curriculum leaders, feedback was considered, then to Staff – feedback was heard again. There was definitely a direction that the DP had in mind- but with a change that impacts so many people, it was important to go through the process where different people got the opportunity to be heard. Staff feel good about this process and the changes.
Another example of a school wide shift is that we are going from a dual platform (microsoft & google) to just one. Again the DP has gone through a process (because this does involve risk and staff feeling vulnerable if they don’t know how to use the alternative platform). An outside contractor has listened to different voices of the staff, there was a digital group formed by interested staff to collaborate on this decision, then this was presented to staff. There has been PLD running around digital platforms and with the decision being made, there is the offer of a lot more PLD before the shift happens officially in 2025.
Both good, solid examples of how to effect ownership of change.
I have 3 teachers wanting to attend a Year 7&8 Auckland Zone Netball competition (Week 6). The planning and organisation sounded straightforward (20 students) when speaking with my Year 7 & 8 teacher. She would go, no reliever required, split her class, due to low numbers across the team. Too easy. It then came to my attention via a voice of another voice that two staff members were not happy in the Year 5&6 team. They should be going as it’s their teams (Only 7 of the 20). Knowing 2 of the personalities involved, I didn’t want this to escalate. What should have been something very simple, was now no longer. Half stories were communicated between the teachers and this included putting me in the so-called ‘meat sandwich.’ I needed to have some honest conversations around honesty, transparency and time to process everything. End of last week, I suggested that 2 teachers go instead of 1, manage a team each, both classes to be split (won’t impact class sizes). Win, win.
This seems to be the final scenario in place. Fingers crossed.
Wisdom of Solomon(ella) is a leadership skill that is very valuable to have!
The principal at one of my previous schools aimed to introduce collaborative learning, but staff reactions were mixed. Some teachers were open to the idea if they had good rapport with their teaching partners, while others had strong reservations about the approach. To build consensus, the principal initiated a gradual transition by starting with small steps such as arranging teaching desks together in workspaces to encourage informal collaboration. She held regular check-ins with teachers to discuss their experiences and address any concerns. This change was also discussed regularly at staff meetings and staff were encouraged to share back on things that were working well and things that they were finding difficult.
Reflecting on a video Aaron emphasized the importance of communication, not just in reaching a final decision, but in actively listening and acknowledging others’ feelings. This is something which my previous principal embodied. She created a supportive environment where teachers could openly share their thoughts and adjust to the new approach at their own pace. By listening to and addressing their concerns, she slowly built confidence in collaborative learning. As teachers began to see the benefits and felt their voices were heard, resistance decreased, leading to broader acceptance of the initiative across the school. This careful, step-by-step process allowed the principal to gain consensus on implementing collaborative learning.
Time, effective listening and good feedback all at play to create a positive outcome.
For context, I did and still do work in a collaborative space made up of 3 classes.
My previous team leader was highly democratic in his approach. One memorable strategy he used, which I now apply with my team, was a collaboration continuum. He provided us with a scale ranging from “not collaborative” to “100% collaborative,” we were each asked to place ourselves on this continuum. Once everyone had marked their position, we revealed our choices. As a team, we all clustered around the 75% mark, indicating that there wasn’t much divergent thinking in this instance. However, later in the year, when we had individual projects or activities specific to our classes, and there would be a split point of view on how to run these, he would refer back to our continuum and agree that it was acceptable to do some things independently since we had collectively agreed on a 75% collaboration level.