Question no.1.

How would you describe the culture at SMdP before the arrival of Odiotti
and Seiberlich?
Answer: Before the arrival of Odiotti and Seiberlich the culture of SMdP was hap hazard. The
surveys results showed that most of the teachers faculty did not believe on school policies and
philosophy of learning process in SMdP. As a result the teachers turnover rate was very high
which defiantly not a good sign of school culture was. There were multiple issues in the school
which disgrace the culture of SMdP. Like late arrival of students was the part of school culture.
There were physical fights among the students. They were biased on racial issues as majority of
them were Latino.
There were no such routines for school events which had made them so dry and
hard in terms of good students. Any visitor can easily observe that there was no mutual respect
for teachers and class mates. As both were not concerning with respect its obvious when a school
culture was not representing respect among teacher then eventually students will also disrespect
each other as they were in SMdP. Students often create disruptions by entering class rooms
through sides rather than main doors. The school culture represented the attitude and behavioral
issues thats why there were no role models for the juniors from seniors. There was no
welcoming atmosphere around the school which was negative element for a school culture.
There was a lack of academic performances not only the students but also the teachers were not
taking any concern for best results or performance. The culture clearly depicted the racial, ethnic
and academic diverse issues in school. The culture also represented that there was no check and
balance for the teacher and students also. To sum up, there was shortage of good will,
infrastructure of school. Obviously all these problems created a general perception among the
outsiders were not good. Ultimately all these elements make a school cultute and there in SMdP
the culture was badly affected in all areas.
Question no.2. Was the schools culture aligned with its mission?
Answer: When we talk about SMdPs culture association with mission then immediately
according to the situation in the school the answer comes in that is simply No, the school culture
was not aligned with the school mission statement as in the mission statement it was clearly
depicted that School is committed to academic excellence made affordable for young people of
limited options through each students participation in the hire for education program. SMdP will

strive to develop the full potential of each student in an atmosphere of mutual respect for the
religious and cultural heritage of every individual.
Now if we look at the current scenario of the
school then according to the mission statement there should be academic excellence for students
and of course for the school as well that was absolutely not there. As most of the students were
not completing their session seriously even a quarter of a class of 2008 ten of forty two
students did not complete their academic requirements in time to graduate. So it did not align
with school mission. Then we see that in mission it was clear mention that every students
participation is essential but in SMdP there was no such routine or schedules for school events on
academic and co extracurricular activities where students could utilize their full potential, energy
and enthusiasm to show their abilities in term of academic or any other educational and
interactive activities. In the next part of mission its also very clear that there should be an
atmosphere of mutual respect for religious and culture heritage of every individual but in realty
the school culture did not represent any kind of respect even among teacher or among class
mates, seniors towards juniors or juniors towards seniors. In fact the school culture was a victim
of ethical, cultural and racial bias among the students which was totally against the mission. To
sum up with above discussion having practical examples its clear that schools culture not at all
aligned with its mission.
Question no.3. Given the situation, what specific challenges did Odiotti and Seiberlich face?
How are these challenges related?
Answer:In the given situation Odiotti and Seiberlich had to face many challenges in SMdP. The
first one we can see that there were a lot of student related issues in the school i.e there were non
academic issues plagued the school. There were physical fights, racial, ethical and cultural
differences among the students. There was no safety feeling in them which affected their
performance a lot. They were not taking their academic carrier seriously that can be a threat for
the school survival.
A hardworking teachers team can be a back bone of any institution. In
SMdP the scenario shows that there was a long list of teacher related issues as well. Teachers
were not cooperating for each other if someone new enters among them they feel a threat for
them. They had negative perception in key areas, including the administration of school policies

and school-wide philosophy which concerning the learning process. They were not even clear
about their own duties and their accountability. There was no check and balance to maintain a
check and balance on both for the students and teachers was a big challenge for Odiotti and
Seiberlich because it led towards a high turnover of teachers.
Then another challenge was to
maintain the administrative part of SMdP for Odiotti and Seiberlich. Both of them noticed that
the dean of students was keen on changing the schools culture in a measured way. He was quite
smart about people, leadership and conversations but on inquiry its revealed on both of them
that although the deans intentions were positive, but his influence was weakened because his
role had not been defined broadly enough. So in the beginning Odiotti and Seiberlich identified
the challenges in every dimension of the school they were to lead: students, teachers and
administration. To fulfill the required challenges they had to be committed so that they can build
an overhauling culture in SMdP for making it a true learning organization.
Question no.4. What would you do if you were Odiotti and Seiberlich? How would you
fix SMdP? Where would you start if you wanted to build a new culture? How would you
integrate the different elements of your solution?
Answer: If I would be on Odiotti and Seiberlich place then definitely in the beginning I would
settle the current scenario and after a while I would try to fix the problems which would
eventually help me out to create a new culture in the school. First of all I would collect the
present information in the school in all dimensions it would be about students, teachers and
administration. After that I would make them realize that for every learning organization it is
very important to be punctual and organized. I would keep a strong check and balance on
everything regarding classes, curriculum, time tables, administration, student affairs and late
arrivals.
Then after fixing
that I would make some strategies and structures to create a new culture in the school, i.e I would
arrange small parties for the students and teachers to create a harmony in the system. Moreover
incentives would be suggested for them on academic levels. Teachers would be suggested that
they would create a healthy and competitive atmosphere in the class so that every individual
would feel honored and respected by others.

I will formulate a student a union that would look

into all the concerned matters of students. I would interact with the student union on regular
bases so that all issues among the students can be sought out on daily bases.
Extracurricular
healthy activities like debates and essay competition will be organized so that academic activities
can be high lightened.
Students and teachers opinions will be taken on weekly bases, so that
evaluation of the administration can be done for further improvements.
By implementing all
these steps, it can be predicted that the level of school will be enhanced in no time because
evaluation and feedback would be there as a tool for check and balance.