Create opportunities, not fear, through change: we must resist being drained by a concern over managing change, and invest more in powerful learning to support a positive future

Leadership, Jan-Feb, 2002 by Dennis R. Parker

Did you ever have a pet peeve over a word or phrase? For me it's "Have nice day." There's also the occasional "Enjoy!" offered by a waitress upon delivering your meal. It feels as if the person is taking charge of my day or my meal by giving me a command rather than a wish.

Sometimes I want to say, "I'll have whatever kind of day I please, thank you!" Or to the waitress, "I'd rather withhold judgment until I've at least had a bite!" It would be so much better if someday we all wished -- not commanded -- that people have a nice day or enjoy a meal by saying "I hope you have a nice day" or "I hope you enjoy your meal." It would certainly feel more like they meant it.

Worn out phrases can lead us astray

According to the old Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the way we talk not only reflects but also influences our thinking, not to mention our behavior. Hence, we often think of "our talk" linked with "our walk," our thinking with our actions. I think most of my colleagues would agree that more than a few phrases, once highly coveted, have since worn out their welcome -- "back to basics," "empowerment," "restructuring," "retarded," and the ubiquitous yet waning "preparing for the new millennium." Unfortunately, each generated untold investments of money and action to little or no avail.

There are many more terms I'd also like to drop. For me, they've died in the field but haven't yet fallen over. They are often taken as givens, wearing the mantle of sacred cows. At best, they waste our time. At worst, they lead us astray.

Among the several terms I'd vote to cancel is the more benign than harmful "lifelong learning." Although it is used in virtually every school's mission statement or vision, "lifelong learning" is never defined, impossible to assess, occurs virtually every waking day of our lives anyway, and is never explicitly operationalized in the curriculum.

Why not replace it with something more productive like "critical thinking" or "intellectual curiosity?" These both relate to enhanced learning throughout life, can be assessed and can be addressed in the curriculum.

A second case involves the term "change" as in "the change process," "managing change" or "change forces." We treat change as if it has only one meaning and spend too much time on it.

On the one hand, it refers to the replacement of one reality with another. It is usually involuntary and is not always for the better. It may include a shift in policies, a change in leadership, a new statute, a budget shortfall, a shift in demographics, a change in daily schedule or school year or the imposition of a schoolwide innovation.

Such changes descend upon us, forcing us to adjust or suffer the consequences. We are often referred to Hall's "levels of concern" or asked to read "Who Moved My Cheese." Although we need to find positive ways to accommodate such change, it is a mistake and a distraction to interpret all change in this way.

A second kind of change is one we should promote daily. Its synonym is "learning," an outward reflection of an inward change. Unlike the "change" characterized above as feared or difficult to accommodate, this "change" should be beyond reproach, embraced as an opportunity and valued as a key to a better work place and a better future for kids.

The currency of our work as educators

Thus, the "change process" related to learning shouldn't be seen as unfamiliar, with stages through which we must find a way to survive. If it is the currency of our daily work with children, why not among ourselves as educators?

"Change" in the first definition often leads to rebellion, anger, fear or the need for healing and often does not lead to improved learning. The second type, "learning to improve our organizational and classroom know-how," leads directly to improved student outcomes. It's just doing what comes naturally for those in the business of teaching. It would be great if we spent less time on the former and more on the latter.

To that end, I hope we continue to enjoy the work of improving our capacity to teach other people's children. And I hope we can begin to better resist being drained by a concern over managing change and invest more in powerful learning to support a promising future in public education for every child by name.

Dennis R. Parker is a faculty member of the School Management Program at UCLA.