0.1 Beyond convention, beyond critique: toward a third way of  (Page 8/12)

The theoretical physicist David Bohm is widely credited with first promoting the type of dialogue described here. Bohm (1985) wrote that in authentic dialogue “people are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning which is capable of constant development and change” (p. 175). Everyone engaged in dialogue is equal; it may have a facilitator but it has no leader. Dialogue is not interested in debate, negotiation, or changing anyone’s beliefs or behaviors, although beliefs and behaviors often change as a result of dialogue. Dialogue is open to any topic, exploratory, reflective, and concerned with collective learning and shared meaning. As a group becomes more experienced with dialogue, “increasing trust between members of the group—and in the process itself —leads to the expression of the sorts of thoughts and feelings that are usually kept hidden” (Bohm, Factor,&Garett, 1991, par. 21).

Capacities for participating in dialogue, according to Issacs (1999), include listening, respecting (legitimizing others and honoring their boundaries), suspending opinions, and speaking one’s voice. A study by Ryan (1999) identified techniques educational leaders use to promote dialogue:

• Connecting: Being visible and accessible in the school as well as being willing to visit families in their homes and meet community members in public places

• Listening: Being willing to listen and demonstrating listening skills

• Learning: Leaders reported “ learning about , and learning from the diverse groups that comprise the school community” (p. 15)

• Educating Others: Sharing information with and modeling dialogue for other members of the school community

Principal preparation programs need to provide opportunities throughout the program for students to engage in dialogue and relationship building.

Community

Sergiovanni’s (1999) suggestion that schools be viewed as communities rather than organizations is generally compatible with movement toward equity and social justice. “In contrast to organizations, relationships in communities are based on shared identity, beliefs, values, and goals. Members of the community are mutually committed to each other and the community” (Glickman, et al., 2010, p. 462; Hord and Sommers, 2008). Of course, not all communities are good communities: “A community can be insular, myopic, or prejudiced” (Glickman, et al, 2010, p. 462). To adapt the concept of community to the preparation of principals four issues must be addressed: the issues of (a) unity and diversity, (b) individual or collective leadership, (c) the relationship of the school community with the larger community, and (d) how a community of discourse among aspiring principals should be managed.

Regarding the issue of unity and diversity, a graduate student who remarks to a critical theorist that persons from different cultures have more commonalities than differences is likely to be summarily diagnosed as being at a lower level on the cultural competence continuum. Yet some of the great leaders for equity and social justice outside and inside of education would agree with the student. A few examples follow: