Blog

One of my very earliest memories is of playing ‘musical chairs’ at a friend’s birthday party. We all paraded around the cluster of chairs until the adult in charge lifted the needle on the record player (yes, it was that long ago) and we all scrambled for a seat. It’s a game played all over the world, and on reflection, I’ve come to think that it’s really quite awful.

The children begin the game happily but are soon divided into a diminishing cohort of ‘winners’ (those who have a seat) and a growing group of ‘losers’ (who do not).

I remember slinking away from the chairs to join the other losers, feeling sad and rejected simply because someone else was closer to the vacant seat when the music stopped. The winners, meanwhile, were jubilant, and not only for succeeding at the challenge of finding a seat, but as having beaten so many of their friends.

Of the fifty most popular schoolyard games for children aged four to six, forty-eight involve some form of competition. From the earliest age, we’re preparing our children to take their place in a world comprised of two groups: winners and losers .

It can be argued that competitive activities inculcate binary thinking (yes/no, black/white) at a time when considering the gray areas of policy and society has never been more important. It also encourages our children to believe that success must come at the expense of others – there can be no winning without someone else losing .

Proponents of competitive games for children remind us that team sports, for example, provide physical exercise and skills growth, as well as encouraging camaraderie and cooperation.

Excellence is seen as impossible without competition; absent any reason to try their hardest, children will become mediocre under-achievers with neither ambition nor drive.

There is, we are told, a natural, Darwinian imperative which inevitably plays itself out on the sports field, in music competitions, or at spelling bees.

I could not agree less.

Not only is competition stressful and divisive, it defines other people as obstacles, rather than potential allies. And, it makes it difficult to build communities within schools when the background of adults in the building has such a focus on the prize or the reward. Then everything becomes a race.

The urge to come first, and to brush aside others on our way to moments of triumph, follows us into adulthood. We retain the childish need to label one team as successful and the other as a failure.

Someone raised to believe that winning is everything is going to find the cooperative classroom a major adjustment. Risk-taking has been suppressed by a concern that coloring outside of the lines will compromise their success; instead, teachers play it safe, which can bring repetitive and bland results.

Without their accustomed, simple, binary roadmap, a teacher needs guidance to enter into a different kind of relationship with their colleagues.

Teachers who would once have been automatic adversaries must learn to offer alliance and collaboration, sharing and encouraging, openness and empathy. It can no longer be ‘ Me ’ and ‘ Them ’, it must become us.

Teachers who are taught to collaborate and cooperate often exhibit interesting, and perhaps unexpected traits. The safe and bland approach is ditched in favor of more unique and creative approaches to teaching that result in innovative solutions to complex problems. The result is a joyful environment where everyone flourishes.

It can no longer be ‘Me’ and ‘Them’, it must become Us.

So, as a new principal with no previous experience embarking on revitalizing a school that had fallen into the doldrums, I had my work cut out for me.

My first observation was that the teachers already felt they were number one—even though parents and children had been leaving in droves. I decided my first task would be to begin to build an environment that intentionally counteracts these previously embedded tenets of independence and isolation.

I decided I needed a formula (I had a minor in statistics) that would help me be always mindful of the ingredients that I wanted to develop. The formula became:

C3 + F2 + SL= engaged community.

The three Cs were: collaboration, connection, and celebration. The two Fs were fun and feedback. And, SL ( shared leadership ) was to remind me that I needed to share the innate power of my position.

However, before the implementation of the formula, I knew that I had to begin to develop trust. Without trust, the teachers would not confide in me, would not ask for my opinion, and advice. Without trust, they would not partner with me.

Trust is about integrity. I began by keeping score on myself, asking:

• Do your actions reflect your stated beliefs? Do you listen without interrupting?
• Do you focus on them specifically without being distracted by ringing phones, etc.?
• Do you attempt to diagnose the problem and offer a solution before they have identified all of the factors?
• Are you treating them the same way you would want to be treated in return?

Trust is about integrity. I began by keeping score on myself.