“When you know what is right, try to do it” was often used as a sign-off by the late Bruce Williams, longtime radio talk show host.  It is a mantra that should be a constant beacon for guiding school leadership.

School is a complex intersection of competing interests, sometimes harmonious but mostly not.  There are mandates and demands, wants and needs, and a myriad of human personalities.  One may believe that school is a one-way street, a set of rules and regulations without exception, and too often a monolith without compassion – it is none of these.  School is a human organism made up of you and me and the entire school community.  Consider all of a school’s populations converging at the place called campus and any school becomes a Times Square at rush hour every day.  Regardless of the size of the school or community, any decision made at this intersection can be complex and complicated.  Leadership tries to find a “right thing to do” pathway through the congestion that results in a sound decision and action.  Mr. Williams’ words provide a consistent flashlight for leadership.

“How can this be”, a reader may ask.  “School is simple.  It educates children.  The law is straightforward.  Children between the ages of 5 and 180 are to be in school.  The profession is ancient.  Teachers teach and children learn.” 

Gadzooks, were it that easy!

Let’s look at three examples of complex issues.  The annual school calendar.  Student use of cell phones in school.  School mitigation protocols during the pandemic.  Here’s looking to you, Bruce Williams.

Some decisions are very complex, but resolve once leadership makes a decision.  For example, the first day of school.  It is just a date on the calendar, but it causes annual debate because so many are vested in the calendaring of a school year.  In our state, the school start date is after September 1 as a protection of the tourist industry.  However, school sports begin in mid-August, an adjustment that creeps earlier in that month every year in order that spring sports do not extend too far into June after school is dismissed.  School leaders try to explain that school does not begin until the first day of classes, but families, coaches, school maintenance staff, and principals know that school really starts on the first day of fall sports practices in mid-August.  And, the last day of school is not the day classes end in May or June, but after the last scheduled event of the spring sports season.  The calendar is a complex issue with assorted legitimate vested interests and leadership needs to acknowledge and fit all interests into a decision.  It is not easy to decide “what is right” because so many school staff, school families, and local businesses are in conflict on their “right”. 

Oh, and then there is spring break.  Pedagogically the break should be between the third and fourth quarters of the instructional year.  Traditionally the break has been attached to the Good Friday and Easter weekend.  Economically the break wants to be before airlines and resorts and hotels in the south change from winter to summer rates.  School assessments say that the break should not interrupt the annual schedule of statewide assessments and college preparatory ACT and AP examinations.  The sport schedule again speaks up and says the break should be after the winter sports state tournaments.  Complex?  Do you think.

I hear Mr. Williams and respond with “when it comes to the school calendar, comply with state mandates, prioritize school instructional and assessment needs, and school programs”.  Right is creating a calendar that allows the school to achieve its educational purposes.  Criticism of such a calendar will arise, but when school programming is the deciding factor, leadership has done what is right for children in school.

Now, how about something more challenging.  Cell phones in school are today’s chewing gum, only its more complicated than a pack of Wrigley’s.  At face value, school is not opposed to chewing gum or cell phones.  Both are inanimate, do not pose safety risks, and are small enough to be unseen, most of the time.  It is what children do with chewing gum and cell phones that raises them from innocuous to troublesome.  The chewing of gum became attitudinal.  The sound and sight of gum smacking chewers looking at a teacher while smacking away pushed some teachers over the tipping point.  And, the incessant wad of dried gum stuck under desks and table tops is so disgusting.  Hence, the right thing to do:  “no gum chewing in my classroom”.

It is what children do with cell phones, like gum, that is the problem.  Children divert their attention from what is being taught and what they should be learning to what they hear, see, and do on their cell phones.  For some children, it is attention to school work or attention to the cell phone, and it is clear that in most classrooms there can be only one focus for a child’s attention.  Hence, the right thing to do:  “no use of cell phones in my classroom”. 

Once again, it would be nice if doing the right thing were that easy.  Children have learned to text on a phone while the phone is in a pocket of clothing.  Cell phones kept on a lap during class time are, unlike the smacking of gum chewing, out of sight of the teacher.  Worse by far, some children are belligerent enough to not turn off the ringer of the cell phone and will answer a call or text in the middle of class as if they were in their bedroom at home.  This is a straightforward challenge of school authority.

Is the proper decision, “no cell phones in school”.  This does not fly for many parents who want their child always to have access to their parent.  Truth be told, this access is a good thing, even for school purposes.  It does not fly for parents who insist their child is responsible and should not be punished because other children abuse the use of cell phones in school.  It even does not fly for the many lay coaches and activity advisors who are not teachers and use texts and e-mail to communicate during the day with their athletes, actors, and activity kids.

Mr. Williams would wisely add, “… every decision has unforeseen consequences, so be careful about your decisions”.  Is it really a good idea to collect each child’s cell phone at the beginning of every class in order to prevent any possible in-class use of the phone?  Collection and redistribution create their own problems.

Hence, the right thing to do:  “keep your cell phone turned off and put away during class time.  Respond only to the abusers.”  Mr. Williams’ advice tells us that the right thing is to protect teaching and learning time and to assure that the protection does not give rise to new and unanticipated problems.

Last and certainly most, not least, is the issue of pandemic protocols in school.  Remote education, limiting group attendance, and masking being three focal points.  The right thing to do is always to protect the health and safety of children in school.  The question arises, what should school do when some parents support protective school actions and some parents oppose the steps taken to create this protection?  The question is exacerbated when the protocol is “either/or”.  Early in the pandemic, school campus was either open or it is closed, the number of people gathering inside for a school event was either limited or it is not limited, and people in school either wore masks or they do not wear masks.  By their nature, either/or issues immediately create oppositional groups and pandemic protocols are the perfect examples of oppositional issues.

From the school leadership perspective, the right thing to do is to protect the most vulnerable people in the school from a school-based spread of the virus.  The vulnerable include those who are immunocompromised, those over 60 years of age, and those not eligible for vaccination.  Closing the campus does this in a large and complete way.  Limiting the size of indoor gatherings to create social distancing does this arbitrarily.  Requiring everyone to be masked does this in a very personally demanding way.  Each of these three protocols has definite anticipated and unanticipated reverberations. 

The most prominent argument has been “who makes the decision to protect a child – school or the child’s parent?”.  Some parents want complete school protection and other parents want only the protections they choose for their child and they may choose none – no campus closure, no social distancing, and no masks.

Mr. Williams, help!  Interestingly, Mr. Williams also was a prominent financial advisor who was neither a risk seeker nor risk adverse.  “Everything has risk, so what is the worst that is at risk”, he might ask on the air and then listen to the caller enumerate.  “Don’t risk what you cannot afford to lose” was a common follow-up and that is where school leadership enters the issue of pandemic protocols.

The right thing to do is a “no child will die or suffer serious health damage due to a decision I make” decision.  Leadership can risk the loss of parent opinion and even a parent’s removal of their child from the school.  Leadership can risk the anger of people who cannot attend a basketball game.  School can risk the “I hate wearing a mask at school” complaints of children and employees.  Leadership can risk being forced out of their job or recalled by the electorate.  These can be outcomes of leadership doing what they know is the right thing.  But, risking the life and health of children – not on my watch leadership says.  All other arguments shrink to “I want what I want”. 

Determining the right thing to do and then sticking with that decision is like standing in the middle of a busy intersection as traffic passes by.  Unnerving is understatement.  But, conviction in a “do the right thing” decision is a bulwark against those who want leadership to do less.