If you conducted a roles' audit, what factors would you analyze?
I'd analyze the following:
- Time on task with students (mandated and by choice)
- Time spent at meetings (type of meeting/time)
- Time spent on curriculum work in school (detail by work including copying, creating. . .)
- Efficiency, effect of committees, meetings
- Time spent on school-related efforts after hours (list specific efforts and time)
- Time spent arranging, organizing, purchasing, taking care of teaching/learning equipment
- Time in direct service and/or collaboration with colleagues
Once I collected the data, I'd then look at which roles have the most time-on-task with students, and which roles have little time-on-task with students. Then I'd look at the amount of time-on-task with regard to colleagues, meetings, and equipment, and then look at the impact of that time--does it make a significant difference, and how do you know that. After that I'd begin to look at restructuring roles for better effect.
In most schools, there's little extra people time so this is probably a null issue as most schools could profit from more hands-on-deck for sure. In some schools, I think roles probably could be reshaped for better effect, but that would depend on the outcome of a roles and responsibilities audit.
We can all take the time to audit our own time, efforts, and effect too. What do we do that makes a difference? How do we know it makes a difference? And, what do we do that's less effective or even negative with regard to potential and possibility? This is an important consideration too--one that's difficult to do on your own, and one that would be a great talking point for a critical friends group.
The more we can shift roles and responsibilities toward greater shared leadership, reasonable/doable expectations, and time-on-task with students, the better our school systems will be.
