The lost opportunity of Whooping Crane 217

The following was sent to the writer of this online article:

Crane once part of Operation Migration shot

I prompt you the reader to be aware of the general tone of the writing and to ask yourself what the writer's style engenders in her audience.

Lastly, if the tone of a writer engenders cynicism in his / her audience, is this responsible reporting?

Amanda,

I teach wildlife biology in an affluent suburban high school in New York State (Bethlehem CSD) and (my opinion) I believe that the tone of the article (choice of words, context, subject / facts / trivia reported) will lead supporters of your view to become cynical about "people today" and non-supporters (hunters & those who generally don't value biodiversity) to become even more acutely entrenched in their ignorance.

In both cases (supporters and not) I don't think your purpose was to dis-engender compassion for the cranes, but this may be the result.

Rather than pointing supporters to develop ill feelings toward other people, engendering even greater compassion toward cranes by educating your readers about the ecological value, aesthetic value, and additional qualities of the species would clearly impact the supportive demographic more positively, but it would also impact the more pragmatic / neutral readers as well.

The story of Crane 217 had an opportunity to resonate with an audience that here to for had no knowledge of its existence and that, perhaps, upon learning of its fate, and its importance (as you did note) would inspire a sense of greater advocacy and activism.

When people become cynical (in this case, supporters who develop deeper negative feelings about "people in general") they may not lose their compassion for their cause, but they lose the positive affect they have on others who they might have turned to their cause.

A general writing structure that focused on this as a possible mistake, and that demonstrated the positive qualities of the species, those who have led this effort, and the dispositions of advocacy and activism would engender a far more positive impact. Generally, the tone of the article I suggest would be a good deal more positive. The rebuttals to being positive are certainly many. They all are valid but they all fail to realize that negativity engenders a greater "digging in" by those whose actions are being assailed. It puts those individuals on the defensive and it casts the writer, and those who the article resonates with as "radical environmentalists" rather than sane, and informed supporters of what is right (namely, the preservation of biodiversity).

I appreciate that my response may engender anger on your part and I apologize if it does. This is not my intent.

In my experience, the most difficult charge that I accept is influencing 17 and 18 year-olds to lose their apathy to things that they either feel are outside their control, or that simply do not matter. This same experience has convinced me that being judgmental or pejorative alienates those who might otherwise listen and resonate.

I would also be remiss if I didn't thank you for at least calling attention to this.

My regards.

Mike Klugman
Wildlife Biology Teacher
K-12 Science & Technology Supervisor
Bethlehem Central School District

"Politically Covered" - a Lesson in Leadership

It's generally not a great idea in schools to endorse political messages and I will refrain from doing so, but not for the reasons that one might assume. This link (http://www.350.org/about/blogs/obama-needs-feel-heat) to an editorial by Bill McKibben, activist and founder of the climate action initiative associated with "350.org," is a "must read" for any school leader in order to understand the implications of the term "political coverage."

I refrain from endorsing McKibben's views on effective climate action leadership because it is a digression from the larger leadership lessons discussed below.

In the editorial, McKibben contrasts the actions of two leaders (Barack Obama, and Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives). He makes a case for one of the leaders truly leading, while the other doing only enough so as to leave himself "politically covered."

I didn't intuit the meaning of this term until reading the editorial, but upon reading it, I immediately made connections to school leadership. School leaders are pulled to engage in such a diversity of issues that it's difficult to give time to all. Compounding this is the urgency, complexity, impact, and equity of each of these issues that forces a leader to prioritize the depth of involvement that can be given to each.

This is not to say that some issues get ignored, nor to say that some issues simply fall away because their impact isn't to enough "of the constituency" to warrant involvement.

It is to say that a MUST for all educational leaders is the responsibility to ask if what we are doing is being done to solve a problem, or rather simply to be "politically covered." In other words, are we doing just enough to simply satisfy 'squeaky wheels.' Educational leadership, when it is effective, is both affirmational and collaborative. It can be the most rewarding of careers, but it is also rife with conflict and difficult decisions. Those who enter looking to be fulfilled, and yet evasive, or avoidant of these difficult decisions be warned; you can only dodge or hide from issues for so long!

The efficacy of an organization can be determined by many things including the quality of its staff, the dedication they give to initiative, and the compassion colleagues feel to supporting one another. An important additional measure is how willing leadership is to reflect on how it will philosophically and ethically "cover," or deal with issues.

In my role, as a K-12 curriculum supervisor (for Science and Technology), the single most difficult task I am charged with is reflecting daily on how any host of issues will be dealt with. Generally, I try to apply the following to all problems:

1. Is my action leading to a long- or short-term solution?
2. If my action is only a short-term solution, what needs to be done to find a more permanent fix?
3. Am I acting in the best interests of all concerned (presetting this question is the demand to know if the best interests of all concerned are not in conflict with resolving the issue)? There are certainly times when "all of the people can't be pleased all of the time."
4. Am I solving the problem, or simply "politically covering" it (ie: "putting a band-aid on a broken leg")?
5. Does my decision have far-ranging precedent that makes future decisions untenable?
6. Does my decision agree with past practice, cultural wisdom, and collegial 'best thinking'?
7. Does my decision evolve the organizational mission?

Reflecting on these 'imperative prompts' leads one to realize the additional imperatives of effective and inclusive communication. To arrive at the most informed position possible one must have as full an understanding of the context as possible and often this requires research, communication, and strategic planning (being reasonably able to predict and anticipate what the consequences of a decision will be).

That last statement might lead one to wonder if "caution is ever thrown to the wind," and it's a great question.

My leadership philosophy and ethic leads me to comment to it (throwing caution to the wind) being rare, there are some things and some issues that truly inspire passion in leaders.

Leaders who seek to be change agents try to find these issues and often fail.

Leaders who look to do what's best for their people, their mission, and their organization discover those things that demand passion and in some cases that lead them to take actions whose consequences are less predictable. While it may be a perception of the general public that these instances are "visionary" I don't think it would be accurate to say that they fall into the category of throwing 'caution to the wind.' In fact, one of the ways effective leaders should be measured is in how they handle these very situations.

Leaders who deal deeply with issues successfully, effectively involve stakeholders to drive buy-in and inform direction. They model their message never expecting others to do more than they (the leader) would ask of themselves. And, of course, they have reasonable expectations and anticipation of desired outcomes.

But, then again, desired outcomes ("desired" in this context meaning meeting the best interest of what is most right for the issue at hand) seldom allow for "political coverage."

I hope you'll read McKibben's editorial and thanks for reading this blog!

M