In Principal Thoughts 16 I introduced the concept of Inputs leading to Outputs, emphasising that if your Input is the same you are likely to get the same Output. Sometimes when something is going wrong we blame or become frustrated with the Output. Common statements are maybe “these kids are so annoying, they are always doing this”. The answer may not necessarily be in the Output but it is always worth examining the Input to see if this is indeed the origin of the problem. It is a good practice for a Principal to question their part in an Input because that is something which can be readily changed. But it is also important for Principals to understand the component parts of an Input and to try and tease out the part these play in generating the Output. Obviously there may be some component parts which are working and some which are not. A classic may be an assembly which has become “ratty” with students being restless and not paying attention. Students may be called back at lunchtime for a practice in good behaviour or staff, sitting with the students may be criticised for not controlling them. However the Principal may have addressed the assembly for 25 minutes and unless they are extremely entertaining the students will become bored witless, with any message in the address being completely forgotten by its conclusion. The Principal, who at first examined the key Input, which is the address, will perhaps find the answer in its length and maybe in its content, thus saving possible “agro” as a result of taking issue with staff and students.

Supervising a trainee teacher class requires consideration of the various Inputs a teacher is committing to a lesson and the resulting Outputs which will be apparent in how well the students are engaged and what is being done to check their understanding. Like most Principals I had that pleasure, and indeed it usually was a pleasure to supervise a trainee teacher in action. I do recall one class where the teacher was unbelievably boring. After what seemed an eternity I looked at my watch in the hope that the forty minute lesson was almost concluded but sadly only ten minutes had passed. To my shame it wasn’t long before I actually drifted off, fortunately for only five minutes. From that time on I reminded myself to avoid having a similar Input into my lessons as that trainee.

However analysing the Inputs will take skill, understanding and experience. It requires really objective thinking, not focusing on blame but rather on process. Another case I recall was a class I attended to assist a new, struggling teaching in classroom management. In this exercise I sat at the rear of the class incognito. The teacher did everything right - lined the students up outside as was expected, marked the roll, introduced the lesson, asked questions, showed an interest in the students’ work - but it just didn’t happen. There was something missing and it was difficult to define but it had to be the feeling generated by the teacher which wasn’t appreciated by the students. Relationship is so important in communicating as a teacher and if this can’t be formed the teacher will struggle. Perhaps this will be a passing problem or perhaps it is not. There are some people who just don’t have the necessary personality to be a teacher and consequently they will be miserable in the job.

Three times a week we met as a staff, providing an opportunity for a prayer, some philosophy in brief, and for staff to give notices. It was after considerable time that I recognised the weakness in giving verbal notices without these being backed up with accessible writing in some way. The Input, the verbal notices, were delivered and though it seemed that the assembled staff were engaged, this was indeed where weakness occurred. Of the fifty staff, some may be attending and absorbing, others may be absorbing nothing because their minds are on the first lesson they are about to deliver; maybe they have had a fight with their partner before leaving home; the shopping desperately needs attention after school and pay day is in two days time; their own children were “bolshi “instead of compliant as they prepared for school and the dog had tipped over its water bowl! In these mental circumstances it will be difficult to remember much verbal communication. There was nothing wrong with the Input content but it was the time and incorrect assumption that everyone would suddenly focus on the message at that time when many were likely to have cluttered minds..

Each year I would travel out to visit the school adventure camps in the bush in the Western MacDonnell ranges, and watch students tackle their various challenging activities. Each year I would sit on a rock or recline on some grass and watch the action. Without exception I would say to myself and indeed to the leaders “this is amazing, it really does work and gives the students such a powerful, memorable and meaningful experience”. Students worked in groups of say 15, had experienced, well trained leaders, and were isolated from others, surviving in their group in the rugged yet beautiful ranges, carrying their own gear, as the camp was an expedition, had to cook and tend to what was necessary to live for 9 days. All these inputs were important and made the experience really meaningful. Watching the action, I was able to reflect on the Inputs which were important. One Input was the length of the camp. The experienced outdoor ed leaders were of the firm opinion that the 9-10 days duration made the camp so much more powerful than the normal 5 day camp they would usually run. In the final four days the 15 began to really gel as a group, forming strong relationships and personal understandings. Another Input was the mix of a group. Students did not choose their groups which were carefully created by the staff. Most years there were complaints before the camp “I want to be in a group with my friends.” However the desired outcome of encouraging understanding and indeed what was important in a valuable relationship, was a key Output. Now predictably, having left for camp feeling nervous about spending time with students who may not be best friends, the returning statements were always predictable: “I didn’t know X before camp but thought they were not my type - I’ve changed my mind and now think of them as being terrific - funny so helpful and unselfish.” A huge lesson learnt!

The Input was right and the Output terrific. The Input /Output analysis helps to depersonalise an issue. Rather than saying to someone, “what have you done or not done to cause this,” it is easier to say “what are the Inputs which may have contributed to this?” Inputs will indeed create Outputs! Positive change, if necessary, can take place if a Principal is aware of them.

Chris Tudor

AISNT Historian & Principal Liaison