Systemic Action to Address Staff Wellbeing

Charlie Naylor

Thinking about Possible Approaches

Relationships matter: the currency for systemic change was trust, and trust comes through forming healthy working relationships. People, not programs, change people.[1]

What does systemic action actually mean? While a subjective judgment, two approaches are considered here:

1. When a school district or an organization decides on a policy or an approach and implements either across a district. Examples of this might include mandating the utilization of a specific program, perhaps to implement a reading program, or to counter bullying. In terms of remedies to improve staff wellbeing, teacher unions often argue for lower class size or regulated class composition as systemic solutions to improve teacher wellbeing.

2. When a district or organization actively supports actions or approaches generated by staff members that can spread within and across schools. So, actions that might start small become more ‘systemic’ as they permeate much of the district.

I would argue that the first approach is far more common than the second. This is partly because districts have a form of hierarchical control, albeit within limits set by law, provincial mandates, union contracts, and some level of teacher autonomy. The first approach can be positive or problematic – just like in (perhaps outdated) terms of teaching, there may be very good ‘traditional’ teachers and very good ‘progressive’ teachers – the label describes an approach to teaching but does not gauge the quality, so just as there might be good or poor traditional or progressive teaching approaches, so there might be good or poor examples of systemic action implemented by school districts.

The example I will share reflects the second approach, and it’s taken from work in School District 47, Powell River, BC.

The origins and phases of the systemic action were:

1. Collection of data from Focus Groups from four staff groups: elementary and secondary teachers, educational assistants and school-based administrators. Each Focus Group addressed questions about what impacted their wellbeing at work and what they would like to see changed.

2. Writing of Focus Group reports with key themes identified.

3. Synthesizing the key themes in order that a wider number of staff could discuss what they considered priorities for action from the identified themes.

4. A common theme was identified across all groups – the need to improve professional relations –and, therefore, a suitable priority for systemic action.

5. District support for the formation of a Learning Group to extend both individual skills and group/meeting processes to improve dialogue and reduce conflict, especially in contentious situations.

6. A facilitated Learning Group was formed, with teachers and educational assistants from several schools participating. Six (3-hour) sessions were held over the school year. All sessions took place after school, with dinner provided. Release-time was provided for half of the sessions, with participants contributing their own time for the remaining ones.

7. Members of the Learning Group used the Learning Group approaches in their own schools.

What Makes This Systemic Action?

Pervasive levels of problematic professional relations were widely reported as negatively impacting the wellbeing of many staff, and were considered sufficiently widespread as to make the issue systemic. The school district’s action of providing funding for an external facilitator and teacher and educational assistant release time was systemic in two ways — the funding itself and the implicit message that the district only funds work that it sees as valuable.

However, while these actions indicate some levels of systemic action, they do not guarantee systemic change. The district is acting in support of an approach which potentially can impact the system without any guarantee that it will change it.

So which systemic change to bet on – Approach 1 where the district calls the shots or Approach 2 where the district enables an approach but does not initiate or control it? As with the example of progressive/traditional teaching, either could be anything from wonderful to a shipwreck, with most efforts somewhere in-between. Top-down policies can be subverted at multiple levels, while bottom-up initiatives often struggle for sustainability, scalability and broader credibility if not seen as coming from or explicitly endorsed by the district.

First Year Progress

Towards the end of the first year of the Learning Group, I drafted a report of our work. I invited input from the participants who had taken the Learning Group ideas, techniques and processes into their roles as educational assistants, classroom or Special Education teachers. They reported trying out these new or adapted approaches in their professional conversations with peers, administrators, and parents. They found improvements in their own practices and benefitted from improved dialogue, less confrontation and more efficient use of time in meetings.

Slow Systemic Change

This could be termed ‘slow’ systemic change. Like the ‘slow food’ movement it requires patience and persistence, getting the right ingredients and not rushing into quick fixes – a tasty casserole cooked for several hours rather than a frozen pizza zapped in the microwave. It does not transform systems overnight, and it may fizzle out. But if 10 people in a small school district go back into their schools and gradually make changes in their own practices, then systemic change is starting. If then they gauge when it is appropriate to offer or introduce approaches in staff or school-based team meetings, in parent communication and where professional relationships are frayed and in need of repair, then further systemic change is possible. They place their skills and acquired processes at the service of the school, district, or organization so it can function better. When systems functions improve, staff feel better and their wellbeing is enhanced.

This kind of systemic change is generated and maintained by the worker bees, not by the forms of charismatic leadership that inspire but quickly disappear. Leadership is, however, needed to encourage and sustain it, to inquire on progress, to ask for examples of success, so that the work is noticed, and appreciated. Recent findings from Focus Groups in a different BC school district identified ‘lack of appreciation’ as a factor in reduced staff wellbeing. If good work is done and nobody appreciates it, or even seems to notice it, the incentive to persist may be reduced. Such appreciation can be from a hierarchical leader or from a peer, but we all need some appreciation for what we do, personally and professionally. So, for systemic change to maintain momentum, perhaps there is a need for occasional or even frequent supportive connections, comments or expressions of appreciation and recognition, so that systemic change builds on and reinforces the connections and humanity in our schools and districts rather than just seeing systems change as a technical process.

Leaders can sustain change and growth by simply being there to discuss with practitioners implementing the changes and to learn from the approaches, increasing their human interactions with those potentially changing systems and cultures, one conversation at a time. ‘Leaders’ can be anyone from a superintendent to a bus driver, from a school principal to an educational assistant. It’s possible, and I would argue preferable, to assume leadership to be a concept rather than a position, where anyone can ‘lead’ to support positive change.

We often rush from fix to fix in many education settings, forgetting the last fix as we try out the new one, or saying ‘Yes we did that last year, it didn’t work.’. Real systemic change in most cases takes years, builds slowly so that like seeing a distant relative’s child after a 5-year absence, we can see the difference in growth and development not always visible to those close to the child every day. So this is an ‘anti-rush’ and ‘anti-fix’ approach to changing and improving systems. It’s not very sexy but worth sustaining through persistence, funding, by the provision of encouraging and enabling leadership at all levels and by staff taking control of their own learning and professional relationships.

I started this article with a quote from Dr. Bruce Perry who articulated the necessity for human connection and positive relationships to make systems change possible and effective, and to build trust with healthy working relationships. With K-12 education systems involving huge levels of human interaction, our professional relationships are crucial to creating positive cultures and efficient systems. Perhaps we might reconsider the meaning and potential of systemic change by considering this kind of slow but intentional example how improving human interactions to create better professional relationships might improve staff wellbeing and positively impact school or organizational settings.

Charlie Naylor

January 2021

[1] Bruce D. Perry, Maia Szalavitz (2017). “The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog: And Other Stories from a Child Psychiatrist’s Notebook–What Traumatized Children Can Teach Us About Loss, Love, and Healing”, p.85, Hachette UK