0.5 Redburn, m. (february 2009). developing trust in schools through  (Page 6/9)

The purpose to which the consensus process was applied in the two principals’ schools varied to the same degree as the many demands that are placed on schools and their personnel. Two broad categories of application that appeared in the interviews were planning/decision-making efforts and conflict resolution. Using the consensus model, Lincoln’s principal took a collaborative approach as the staff members worked to resolve the scheduling and space issues associated with accommodating full-day kindergarten.

In reference to the consensus process and planning/decision-making activities, the superintendent in this study noted that administrators were being asked to engage in school improvement planning with the assumption that they knew how to do it. “What I realize now is over the years I probably wasn’t providing enough assistance and training and support for those who I was asking to facilitate those planning sessions.” With training in the consensus model, he pointed out that the school administrators have tools to facilitate the gathering of input, conduct research, and make decisions.

Both principals reported facilitating in conflict situations, whether between staff members or staff members and parents. This was accomplished using consensus strategies that identified issues, potential resolution, and working toward a plan. Whether in the context of planning/decision-making or conflict resolution, the studies’ participants repeatedly referenced the following consensus strategies they used or in which they participated:

• Sitting in a circle.
• Going around the circle to gather input.
• Listening to one another, sometimes having designated listeners.
• Giving everyone an opportunity to speak in turn, often referred to as “getting their voice in the room.”
• Identifying and recording all suggested alternatives and solutions.

Strategies mentioned only by the study’s administrative participates included:

• Serving as a facilitator, the person who guides the process.
• Identifying “worst and best outcomes,” two recorded lists of all the worst and the best outcomes the participants can imagine that might come out of the process or discussion in which they are involved.
• Repeating or reading back input, often done by the “listener.”
• Providing each participant an opportunity to agree or disagree.
• Asking those who disagree how the idea can be changed so they can agree.
• Talking or listening sessions, intended to provide a venue for participants to express themselves (get their voice in the room) and for the hosts or organizers of the session to hear (be the listeners) what they have to say.

Strategies that were listed by the Lincoln staff members only were:

• Using small groups for various conversations within the process.
• Establishing ground rules for group processes.

The common themes and associated sub-themes related to the consensus processes used by the participant administrators and experienced by the Lincoln staff members that emerged in the course of this study are:

• The emergence of trust and the facets of trust as defined by Bryk and Schneider (2002) and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) resulting from the use of the consensus strategies.
• The value in the development of relationships of listening to and being heard by others.
• The emergence of collaboration and empowerment resulting from the use of consensus strategies, frequently described as consequences of hearing and being heard.