We often hear the expression “our school community”. It sounds warm and embracing, but do we really understand what is meant by that expression beyond the positive emotional feelings it evokes?
The word “community” originally comes from the Latin ‘communitas’, meaning “shared in common” or “public spirit”. However, the way we use the word “community” has shifted quite radically in recent decades.
This became clear to me a few years ago. I was in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea attending a multi-day “sing-sing” (large dance festival) in Wabag, a small town in Enga province. Groups from most parts of Papua Guinea had come to Wabag for the sing-sing, with each group decorated in the ceremonial dress of their region to perform their traditional dances in accordance with their long-standing customs. Each group had its own cultural identity, including its own language, as Papua New Guinea contains 835 (or 12%) of the world’s 7,000 living languages, many confined to an area no wider than the mountainous valley where the speakers live.
In Wabag it became obvious to me that this sing-sing was a vibrant expression of what “community” meant in pre-modern times. Each community was geographically coherent and sustained by a shared commitment to a common set of values, beliefs and experiences that were passed on through families. There was a consensual commitment to a set of rituals and ways to behave towards others in the community, and possibly also a consensus about how those outside the community were to be perceived. Traditionally, therefore, “community” was the expression a set of mutual obligations that a person was born into; it was central to their individual and group identity.
Today, the term “community” is often – even usually - used in a wider incarnation. These days, for example, we freely talk about “the disability community”, “the online gaming community”, “the LGBTQIA+ community”, “the activist community”, “the tech community”, and even “the plane spotting community”, among many others.
Does this wider use of the word “community” dilute the force of the word? Some would certainly argue so. It is true that ‘modern’ communities which are based on common or special interests are usually centred on coherent ideas that bring people together. However, they are not communities in the deeper, traditional sense of the word as their members generally don’t live together in close proximity, but rather the “communities” are collections of people who share a common interest or common trait.
Unlike traditional communities, some of these communities may even be ephemeral as members come and go as they please. This apparent freedom contrasts strongly with communities in the traditional sense because the customary sense of mutual obligation has become diluted or is missing entirely.
In the modern sense, then, we tend to describe everyone who shares anything in common or whose lives intersect in any kind of meaningful way a “community”. Reciprocal obligation is no longer required, and expectations of roles or beliefs are not a prerequisite for belonging. This is especially evident in industrialised or post-modern societies where individualism and personal freedom have overtaken the duty-focussed priorities of collective obligations. Individualism is largely incompatible with the traditional concept of “community” which, by definition, involves some restriction on personal liberty.
So, how realistic is it for any school in today’s world to claim the students, teachers, parents and alumni associated with the school comprise “the [insert name of school here] community”?
One key factor is the depth of connection between the people who function in the school. An authentic community demands strong relationships based on mutual obligations. If the interactions within the school are mainly transactional in nature, with a narrow focus on academic grades, maintaining discipline, attending meetings, providing value for money, and so on, the school probably should be seen as an “institution” rather than a “community”. If a few voices (such as the senior management) carry excessive weight and influence compared with students, teachers and parents, then the school’s claim to be a “community” may be more aspirational than actual.
A school CAN be an authentic community in the modern sense of the word, but only if it fosters deep relationships based on mutual care for one another and, of supreme importance, a 100% shared commitment to the Mission (enduring purpose) of the school. Sadly, many schools refer to themselves as “communities” more as a branding term in their marketing than a genuine reflection of the deep, mutually obligatory bonds that operate at every level at every minute of every day within the school.
Now, think about the school where you are involved – do you think it is fair to identify it as an authentic “community”?
- Dr Stephen Codrington
We offer support for school leaders and board members in many areas, including independent school culture surveys and workshops on Mission, Vision and Strategic Thinking.
Further information on this and many other facets of best practice in school leadership and governance is provided in the books “Optimal School Governance", and “Insights into School Leadership and Board Governance”, which can be ordered directly through Pronins.
You may also be interested in previous articles which are archived at https://optimalschool.com/articles.html. You can subscribe to receive future articles by e-mail using the red button below.