Please allow Windsor to move forward.

I am very interested in attending the Democratic Town Committee's special meeting on the achievement gap (See comments section of http://windsor.patch.com/groups/education-a-teachers-point-of-view/p/election-congratulations).  I have been re-reading quite a bit about prevailing theories in community psychology and I believe that I can contribute to the conversation by helping to outline an approach to moving forward.

Consider that there are two approaches to solving a problem rooted in a community system (community being Windsor and the Public School System).  The first approach, which closely resembles the pathway that led to the Year 1 EER report, is a needs driven, or deficit based, approach.  This approach is by far the most commonly traveled pathway in community-based research.  This approach is used to define the problem using qualitative (narrative) and quantitative (numbers) methods.  There is no opportunity for participants to share their insight on the strengths of the community or offer possible solutions to the challenges they identify through the interviews or focus groups because this is pushed to a later stage in the process.  This approach requires the most financial and human resource support.  While it also lead to the most controversy because when individuals and researchers attempt to interpret a problem there will always be disagreement when some groups do not feel that they own the research because it diverges from their interpretation of the problem at hand.  In addition, there will always be individuals who feel that they were left out of the data gathering process and so their perspective is not represented.  This is quite true from what we have seen in Windsor.

The second approach requires a clear commitment across community groups to identify the capacities and assets of the community.   Using this approach, the problem can be clearly defined through quantitative methods, yet talking about the problem is not the primary focus because the preliminary stage of the approach identifies all individuals, groups, or institutions that are connected to the problem so there is already an investment in serving the population. 

The reason that there isn't time spent discussing the various aspects of the problem is because the problem is, in most cases, personal and poses a threat to an individuals sense of security or future.  The passion for solving the problem brings everyone to the table and this motivation should be utilized for discussing solutions from the beginning.  When individuals are given the opportunity to share their opinions on who is to blame, there will always be others at the table who might feel as though they themselves have a relationship with someone who is being grouped as the problem.  This leads to anger, hostility, and frustration - detracting from the original motivation that everyone had towards solving the problem.  

Using the second approach navigates around the anger and hostility about the problem itself.  The asset focused and strength based approach invites champions or stakeholders (also known as community leaders and invested citizens), from the beginning, to identify the strengths and the natural assets of a community.  Being an asset themselves, their resources can quickly be utilized to build consensus from the beginning and begin to move forward towards a solution, instead of being suspending discussing the details of a clear and observable problem.

I do believe that by the end of year 2 and beginning of year 3, the EER as originally intended would have eventually integrated an ecological model to implementing the recommendations of the EER (as described above in approach 2).  Unfortunately, it was already too late.  The division had been made threw brute force and a clear power struggle that led to individuals taking sides.  That is unfortunate.

So, why am I writing this?  I am writing this because I want to take the second pathway.  I would greatly appreciate your support in solving the achievement gap through a non-partisan, collaborative process, between the many individuals, organizations, groups, and local institutions that have an investment in our children's education.  So, as the DTC potentially convenes the December special meeting on the achievement gap, I hope that there is a focus on bridging the gap between community members and community leaders.  That the DTC President, Mr. Curtis, makes it a priority to utilize his position as a notable leader in our community to bring the members of the DTC to the consensus that we need to collaborate with the Board of Education, the Republic Town Committee, the Windsor Independent Town Committee, the Early Educational Council, the Family Resource Centers, the Social Services Department, the Youth Service Bureau, the Recreation and Leisure Services Department, the many civic organizations that contribute to the welfare of our community, etc. to actually begin to map our assets and focus on a solution to the achievement gap.

We need to work together to first identify the assets and strengths of our community.  We need to take a moment and find common ground beyond politics so that we can focus our attention to building the capacity within our community to move forward and adopt the necessary changes.