Tragic shootings. Culture wars. Threats of violence. Closures resulting from debunked, racist allegations against Haitian immigrants in Ohio. A lot has happened in schools in the run-up to a contentious and hotly debated national election.
But this year isn鈥檛 unique. Schools have, historically, been a public space where polarizing issues have played out. In recent years though, these debates have become more high-pitched and polarizing with real-life consequences鈥攕ometimes even costing teachers and school leaders their jobs.
In a nationally representative survey conducted by the EdWeek Research Center this summer, a quarter of teachers and school leaders polled said that politics, political ideologies, and/or politicians have contributed most to the polarization they鈥檝e faced in their district or schools. Nineteen percent said the top contributor was social media.
Educators are also hesitant to bring up politically sensitive topics in class, even if these topics relate directly to a social studies lesson. In response, they鈥檝e adjusted or changed their instructional approach, the same survey found: Thirty-five percent of teachers reported that they skipped an entire topic or subtopic because it would spark complaints from students, parents, or their superiors, while 23 percent said they had skipped a potentially 鈥渃ontroversial鈥� topic. Nineteen percent felt compelled to bring up diverse perspectives on a topic, even if they felt the topic didn鈥檛 need that treatment.
Teaching within these tight parameters can be exhausting鈥攁nd could lead to quicker teacher burnout, which is already a significant problem. School leaders need to step in, and find ways to tackle the looming threat of polarizing conflict.
鈥淭he 21st-century superpower is facilitation. It鈥檚 not charisma-led leadership,鈥� said Martin Carcasson, a liberal arts professor and the founder and director of the Center for Public Deliberation at the Colorado State University. Carcasson coaches school and district leaders to broach, and facilitate, difficult conversations within their district offices, with parents, and with the larger school community.
Conflicts within a school community over divisive issues like reading instruction, gun control, or the rights of transgender students can often mimic what鈥檚 happening in the political sphere, where the two-party system often reduces every debate to a political zero-sum game: Do everything in your power to make your opponent鈥檚 ideas fail.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a cynical view of the system,鈥� Carcasson said in an interview with 澳门跑狗论坛 this summer.
Breaking the cynicism is hard. There鈥檚 a way to do it
School leaders, as facilitators, can turn a confrontational debate on its head. In some cases, when leaders can anticipate conflict, they can be proactive about diffusing it.
Not all conflicts can be avoided, though. For these times, it鈥檚 important for school leaders to build their facilitation muscles. Carcasson, in his own coaching, has relied on a guided map that can help leaders get in鈥攁nd out鈥攐f a polarizing debate with a solution that works for every participant. It鈥檚 called the Groan Zone.
The 鈥済roan zone鈥� framework for decision-making was popularized in 1996 by Sam Kaner, an organization development expert. It has three distinct stages:
- divergent thinking or collecting data,
- the Groan Zone, or the main debate, and
- convergent thinking, or coming to a resolution.
In each part of this process, the leader, as a facilitator, will need a different skillset. We鈥檝e adapted this facilitation guide for educators to use in heated conversations with each other, parents, or even students during a class discussion on a controversial or polarizing topic.
