萝卜AV视频

An approach for connecting with a diverse group of stakeholders amid political polarization and social division

The entire field of education, from preschool to college, has been pressure-tested in profound ways in the 21st century. We are living in an era of deep disruption, exacerbated by rising school violence and resegregation, increasing political polarization, deepening social divisions, accelerating technological changes and the enduring trauma of a global pandemic.

We see the negative impacts of this upheaval on every level. School and district leaders alike are craving practical tools to help them navigate the many challenges of meeting this moment.

Communicating across difference is one such challenge, though it鈥檚 something educators can meet effectively with the right tools.

Foundational Relationships

First, let鈥檚 start with a simple premise: Relationships are everything.

In their forthcoming book Superintendent as Civic Leader, Jennifer Cheatham, Christina Grant and Ross Weiner argue that the current education landscape requires superintendents to navigate complex political situations along three axes: 鈥渢he micro (understanding and navigating self), the meso (understanding and navigating the local community) and the macro (understanding and navigating the state and national context).鈥�

We can think about these levels in terms of relationships: our relationship with ourselves, our relationships with others and our relationship with the world.

Relationship with self. Understanding this relationship requires ongoing reflection, thinking deeply about why we are who we are, why we have chosen to do what we do and why we do it the way we do. Ideally, this kind of self-reflection also entails values exploration, identifying what we most care about so we can better answer these 鈥渨hy鈥� questions.

Relationships with others. Understanding these relationships requires careful intention and deep listening to uncover who they are, what they bring to the table and what they need.

Relationship with the world. Understanding our relationship to the world requires constant evaluation, figuring out what to do and what to say in relation to shifting contexts that are often unpredictable and hard to navigate, especially in turbulent times like these.

The best education leaders know that communicating across relationships and across difference is one of the most important skills for building credibility and sustaining trust. All of this takes time and ongoing effort, which means that education leaders need to create space in their regular schedules for this important work of relationship-building.

Navigating Difference

What makes something or someone different? What are the most important differences in your community? What differences are most difficult for you to navigate, and why?

There are many ways to define difference, including social identity (race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion), social position (teacher, student, parent, staff, administrator), expertise, lived experience, political affiliation and perspective. These differences and their intersections exist at both the individual and group levels, shaping all our relationships and interactions.

In defining difference, it is as important to ask How am I different? as it is to ask How are they different? Getting clarity about how others perceive us 鈥� to acknowledge that we might be different too 鈥� allows us to see ourselves more fully and clearly.

Navigating difference becomes more complicated when inequalities exist. For example, a white male superintendent leading a school district composed mostly of female teachers in a community composed mostly of families of color must navigate differences of race and gender, and perhaps class as well. This superintendent must be mindful of the fact that his personal identities and professional role may come with more power and privilege than those with whom he interacts. These differences create interpersonal challenges shaped by systems with deep histories. Naming these power differentials 鈥� taking them seriously, seeing them from others鈥� perspectives 鈥� is another way to build trust.

Too often, difference produces discomfort, anxiety, even fear. This can lead us to choose avoidance and silence over honest engagement. But we must flip this script. As the late writer and civil rights activist Audre Lorde reminded us in her powerful essay, 鈥淭ransformation of Silence into Language and Action鈥�: 鈥淚 have come to believe 鈥� that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood鈥�.The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some of the differences between us. For it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken.鈥� Difference can be bridged more effectively if silence is not the barrier.

One way to practice this is through what I call a 鈥渄o-over鈥� exercise. Essentially, this means using your own lived experiences as learning opportunities. Think of a time when you had to communicate across difference and it did not go well, either because you said the wrong thing or chose to say nothing at all. Now ask yourself: What happened? Why did it not go well? What accounts for my words or my silence?

Now imagine that you can go back in time and try again: What would I do differently? What would need to change? What would I say this time? Sometimes we do get second chances to make a better impression, especially when we have the will and power to create them, and these do-over exercises can help turn not-so-good experiences into better practices.

Mapping Your Audience

As education leaders, we communicate with different kinds of people, often simultaneously. Think of our classrooms, which are made up of different kinds of students with a variety of talents and a wide range of needs. The same is true of community forums and school board meetings.

When communicating in these settings 鈥� many of which are public in nature 鈥� it helps to map our audiences in advance. As a kind of shorthand, I put audiences into three buckets: allies (the choir ready for your sermon); adversaries (the opponents ready for a fight); and agnostics (the people who are open to being persuaded, whom in politics we call 鈥渢he movable middle鈥� or 鈥渦ndecided voter鈥�). Knowing who these audiences are, where they are coming from and what they need to hear is crucial to communicating effectively across difference.

One way to practice this audience mapping is to find a professional partner or group of colleagues with whom you can identify and describe the various groups (allies, adversaries, agnostics) in your community. Be as specific as you can by imagining real people who represent these three groups. Which group is most difficult and which is least difficult for you to communicate with, and why? Why is group X easier and group Y more difficult to connect and communicate with? This can help you better diagnose the problems and develop potential solutions. Pay close attention to your answers to these questions.

Now practice audience mapping using a more complex scenario. Imagine you are preparing to announce the adoption of a new districtwide policy that is a dramatic departure from past practice and is likely to be controversial, such as a total ban on cell phone use in schools, creation of gender-neutral bathrooms or stricter curricular requirements for graduation. Anticipating pushback, you have listened to different stakeholders and perspectives, which is a must, but you know your final decision won鈥檛 make everyone happy.

As you prepare your announcement, develop a plan to explain your decision-making in a way that embraces your allies, engages your adversaries and enlists your agnostics. This is what I call 鈥渟egmenting your appeal,鈥� communicating directly to each stakeholder group simultaneously and in sequence.

You can do this by giving them the 鈥渂ottom line up front,鈥� stating clearly what the new policy is and why you have chosen to adopt and implement it. Then you can say: 鈥淚 know some of you (be specific about who) favor this policy鈥� and then affirm their support, followed by 鈥淚 know some of you (again, be specific) have real concerns about this policy鈥� and then address their opposition, followed by 鈥淚 know some of you (be specific again) are still not sure this policy is the right one鈥� and then make your best case.

Always ground your communication in the value(s) that led you to make this decision in the first place and draw from (and specifically reference) the conversations you have had with these various stakeholders that have informed your decision. The goal is not necessarily to please or persuade all of them, but rather to engage them directly, honestly and respectfully. When people feel seen and heard, they are far more likely to listen to you and take you seriously.

Honoring Differences

Communicating effectively across difference requires several interrelated practices 鈥� those presented here, as well as other strategies such as curious questioning, perspective-taking, deep listening and loving speech.

Difference manifests in various ways. Sometimes it means not knowing or understanding someone, which requires curiosity and questioning. Sometimes it means not getting where someone is coming from, which requires a sincere effort to see things from their perspective and lived experience. Sometimes it means disagreeing fundamentally on a value, practice or policy, which requires showing respect and extending grace to those with whom you disagree. All of these things are difficult but well worth the effort. In other words, they can make the difference when navigating difference.

When difference leads to disagreement, what I refer to as 鈥渃ontentious communication,鈥� there are various approaches for education leaders to apply. One is Robert Bordone and Joel Salinas鈥檚 work on conflict resilience, which centers on increasing our tolerance for conflict in order to foster humanization and connection. Another is Julia Minson鈥檚 HEAR framework, a set of practices designed to help us disagree better based on her research on 鈥渃onversational receptiveness鈥�:

Hedge your claims by saying things such as 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 possible that 鈥�,鈥� 鈥淭his might happen because 鈥︹�� or 鈥淪ome people tend to think 鈥� .鈥�

Emphasize agreement by saying things such as 鈥淚 think we both want to 鈥�,鈥� 鈥淚 agree with some of what you are saying 鈥︹�� or 鈥淲e are both concerned with 鈥� .鈥�

Acknowledge the other perspective by saying things such as 鈥淚 understand that 鈥�,鈥� 鈥淚 see your point 鈥︹�� or 鈥淲hat I think you are saying is 鈥� .鈥�

Reframe the positive by saying things such as 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 great when 鈥�,鈥� 鈥淚 really appreciate it when 鈥︹�� or 鈥淚t would be so wonderful if 鈥�.鈥�

One practice I encourage through my B.R.A.V.E. communication and leadership framework is to work harder to find common ground on contested terrain. Too often, we focus more on the contested than the common for understandable reasons. But consider this: If you are fighting with someone, at least you are both fired up about something. And that distinguishes you from those who don鈥檛 care as much, or at all.

In this approach, I also encourage identifying what I call 鈥渇amiliar difference鈥�: the recognition of shared experiences within our different lives. This happens when we are listening to other people鈥檚 stories and we discover something we can relate to on a human level: losing a loved one, raising a child, caring for an elder, making a sacrifice, struggling with a decision, being misunderstood, experiencing discrimination, falling in love, dreaming of a better world or wanting our children to have a brighter future.

In other words, we can be different and still have many things in common 鈥� which is perhaps the most important teaching and learning of all. 

Timothy McCarthy holds a joint faculty appointment at the Harvard Graduate School of Education as founding faculty chair of The B.R.A.V.E. Institute and the John F. Kennedy School of Government as founding faculty chair of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program.