Archive for the ‘Leadership’ category

Analyze This

February 6th, 2011

10 education warning signs that somebody needs to heed as this next decade unfolds:

1)   Between now and 2020, America will need to hire more than 3 million new teachers.

http://inform.com/science-and-technology/impact-baby-boomer-retirements-teacher-labor-markets-439094a

2)   More than 40% of school principals will retire in the next decade according to survey data collected by national principal associations.

http://www.elearnportal.com/student-center/do-you-have-what-it-takes-to-be-a-school-principal

3)   50% of current superintendents in America do not plan to be on the job in five years.

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=17184

4)   Teacher turnover is highest in poor, urban school districts where positions may remain vacant or filled with less than qualified and/or inexperienced  teachers.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/tb/2007/08/24/3336.html

5)   More families are living in poverty and since 2008 this has resulted in increasing numbers of America’s students taking advantage of free and reduced lunch services.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-10-schoollunchinside_N.htm

6)   PK-12 public school enrollment will increase about 4.5 million students by 2018.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2018/sec1b.asp

7)   No data have been collected in a decade but the National Education Association estimates that school facility infrastructure improvements needed are in neighborhood of $322 billion. Report Card Grade: D

http://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm

8)   Arts education and funding declining over last decade, mainly due to budget cuts to public education.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/blog/news_features_releases/2009/06/on-the-chopping-block-again.html

9)   Despite decades of focus on improving literacy rates, we as a citizenry read about the same as we always have.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69

10) By 2018, America will need 3 million more college graduates for the workforce than we’ll graduate.

http://chronicle.com/article/Number-of-Workers-With-College/65948/

1 comment »

Posted in Achievement Gap, Basic Skills, Education Reform, Education spending, Leadership, Literacy, Pam Moran, School Finance, state financial crises, Uncategorized, urban education

Tags:

Your School’s Secret Change Agents

September 3rd, 2010

School change is a challenging, necessary, and sticky business. Too often though, it begins with the search for the negative. Putting on, as thinking expert Edward de Bono would say, our “Black Hat.”

It’s a story that has been told a thousand times. A school needs to improve, to “fix what is broken” and it is up to the principal to identify what isn’t working, develop a plan to improve or repair the issues, and maybe hires a few consultants along the way to help.

What if, we started with de Bono’s “Yellow Hat?” Might the search for solutions began with finding those people at the school who are already succeeding and thriving in spite of the challenges and obstacles they face?

Because, as Harvard Business Review authors Richard Tanner Pascale and Jerry Sternin in their article “Your Company’s Secret Change Agents” point out….

“Somewhere in your organization, groups of people are already doing things differently and better. To create lasting change, find areas of positive deviance and fan their flames.”

Here is an “uncommon sense” approach to school change adapted from their article.

 

Traditional Approach To School Change

Positive Deviance Approach To School Change
Principal or Administrator as Path Breaker
Primary ownership and momentum for the school change comes from the principal’s office. Teachers and staff leave it up to principal to discover what isn’t working and fix it. 		Leadership as Inquiry
Principal or administrator facilitates search; the school staff takes ownership of the quest for change. The teachers look around for positive deviance, those teachers, departments, or grade levels that are doing it differently and better.
Outside In
Outside consultants are hired to identify and share best practices.		 Inside Out
School staff looks for and identifies preexisting solutions (what is working) and amplifies them across the school.
Deficit Based
Principal deconstructs common practices and recommends best-practice solutions. The implication to teachers is “Why aren’t you as good as your peers?” 		Asset Based
Teachers and staff leverage preexisting solutions practiced by those teachers who succeed against the odds.
Logic Driven
Teachers “think” into new ways of teaching and instructing. 		Learning Driven
Teachers teach and instruct into new ways of “thinking.”
Vulnerable To Transplant Rejection
Resistance arises from ideas imported or imposed from outside consultants and or district office. 		Open To Self-Replication
Latent wisdom and knowledge of teachers and staff on site is tapped within the school walls to circumvent the school’s culture/social reaction to outsiders.
Flows From Problem Solving To Solution Identification
Best practices are applied to problems defined within the context of existing parameters.

Flows From Solution Identification To Problem Solving
Possible source of solutions is expanded through discovery of new parameters.
Focused On The Protagonist
Engages school stakeholders who would be conventionally associated with the problem. 		Focused On Enlarging The Network
Identifies school stakeholders beyond those directly involved with the problem.

2 comments »

Posted in change, Leadership, Rob Jacobs

The Builder- Designing The Future of Educational Leadership

December 21st, 2009

If we are to create “tomorrow’s” educational organization and model, are the leaders of “yesterday’s” model the leaders we will need to build “tomorrow’s” model?

If education is to be transformed, should we not transform its leaders? If we are to create a new educational organization, then does it follow, we would need a new style of educational leader?

Current educational leaders are skilled at leading in yesterday’s model. Today’s educational leaders are attempting to fit the needs of “tomorrow” into the organization and model of “yesterday.” The educational organization has created leaders who are skilled at operating within that model. But as the model becomes outdated, misaligned with current needs, and in some cases broken, current leaders can only continue to adjust, repair, and re-align the old model the best they can. What they are not able to do is build a new organization. For, according to Umair Haque, author of a post on the Harvard Business Review blog entitled “The Builders’ Manifesto” it is not leaders that we need, but “builders.”

“What leaders ‘lead’ are yesterday’s organizations. But yesterday’s organizations… are broken.”

“Today’s biggest human challenge isn’t leading broken organizations slightly better. It’s building better organizations in the first place. It isn’t about leadership: it’s about “buildership”, or what I often refer to as Constructivism.

“Leadership is the art of becoming, well, a leader. Constructivism, in contrast, is the art of becoming a builder — of new institutions. Like artistic Constructivism rejected “art for art’s sake,” so economic Constructivism rejects leadership for the organization’s sake — instead of for society’s.”

Educational leaders are formed by the needs of the organization of the past. They were developed within a broken organization, to meet the leadership needs of a broken organization, and are skilled at leading a broken organization. But, if what is desired is to build a new organization, what will be needed are educational builders.

Umaik Haque contrasts the boss, the leader, and the builder in piece on

The Boss The Leader The Builder
drives group members coaches them learns from them
depends upon authority depends on good will depends on good
inspires fear inspires enthusiasm is inspired — by changing the world
says “I” says “we” says “all” — people, communities, and society
assigns the task leader sets the pace sees the outcome
says, “Get there on time.” gets there ahead of time makes sure “getting there” matters.
fixes the blame for the breakdown fixes the breakdown prevents the breakdown.
knows how shows how shows why
makes work a drudgery makes work a game organizes love, not work.
says, “Go.” says, “Let’s go.” says: “come.”

For it is the “builder” that includes us all, student, teacher, parent, communities, and society, in the design. The builder watches and learns from both teacher and student. Most importantly, the builder harnesses the love. For it is the love, the love of learning, the love of students, and the love of teaching that drives us all forward to build the education organization of tomorrow. The builder harnesses that love.

Philosopher Emile Chartier said, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one we have.” Might it be time to build a new idea of what educational leadership should be for the future?

Catalytic Questions:

When was the last time you revisited your view of leadership in education? Would you benefit from a fresh look at what education leadership is or needs to be?

Can we continue to rearrange our existing resources, methods, and strategies or is it time that we build an entirely new model of what education is?

Should construction start with demolition before building?

In what ways can you become a builder? How might that impact your school?

Suggested Reading:

What if your school blew up?: The Little Becky approach to school reform


No comments »

Posted in Edreform, Leadership, Schooling By Design

Be More Than A School Administrator…Be An Innovation Coach

November 20th, 2009

I have an idea…

“It will never work.”
“We don’t have the budget to do it.”
“It will take to much time and we just don’t have any to waste.”
“The district won’t like it.”
“Teachers won’t want to do that.”
“That isn’t the way we do things at this school.”
“What does that have to do with test scores?”

These are just a sample of the typical answers we in education hear when we have an idea. Don’t scoff to easily, think about it a second. After a few perfunctory, “That’s great” or “Sounds interesting” we generally work our way to some of those responses.

What we need is some principals, directors, managers, and superintendents who encourage and support innovation. If change or improvement is what we seek, then changing what we do or how we do it should be encouraged not discouraged.

Mitch Ditkoff writes at The Heart Innovation, the weblog of Idea Champions, that we need managers who are Innovation Coaches. We need managers and leaders who can encourage and develop ideas.

“Most managers, unfortunately, perceive new ideas as problems — especially if the ideas are not their own. Bottom line, they don’t pay enough attention to the ideas of the people around them. They say they want to innovate. They say they want “their people” to do something different. But they do precious little to support their subordinates in their efforts to do so. They foist their ideas on others and can’t figure out why things aren’t happening faster.

“That’s not how change happens. If people are only acting out somebody else’s ideas, it’s only a matter of time before they feel discounted, disempowered and… well…just plain dissed. People are more than hired hands; they are hired minds and hearts, as well.”

Coaches empower others to reach within themselves and pull out their best, their best ideas and innovations. We need managers who will coach their people to pull out their best ideas and support them in the endeavor of finding, creating, and developing these ideas into innovative practices that impact their schools and their students. We need school administrators who can become Innovation Coaches.

“If you want to empower people, honor their ideas. Give them room to challenge the status quo. Give them room to move — and, by extension, move mountains. Why? Because people identify most with their ideas. “I think therefore, I am” is their motto. People feel good when they’re encouraged to originate and develop ideas. It gives their work meaning, makes it their own, and intrinsically motivates.

“Who has the power in an organization? The people who are allowed to think for themselves and then act on their ideas! Who doesn’t have power? The people who have to continually check-in with others.

“Think about it. The arrival of a new idea is typically accompanied by a wonderful feeling of upliftment and excitement — even intoxication. It’s inspiring to have a new idea, to intuit a new way of getting the job done. Not only does this new idea have the potential to bring value to the company, it temporarily frees the idea originator from their normal habits of thinking. A sixth sense takes over, releasing the individual from the gravity of status quo thinking.”

Nothing is more powerful and unstoppable than empowered and excited teachers. Those are the teachers who can change the world. So we need to be open to and encourage our teachers to bring ideas to us.

“You, as a manager, want to increase the number of new ideas being pitched to you. It’s that simple. You want to create an environment where new ideas are popping all the time. If you do, old problems and ineffective ways of doing things will begin dissolving. This is the hallmark of an empowered organization — a place where everyone is encouraged and empowered to think creatively. Within this kind of environment managers become coaches, not gatekeepers.”

Innovation and change doesn’t happen because you have some catchy vision statement printed on a poster and posted in all the classrooms. That is leadership through lamination. What is needed is leadership through co-creation and co-innovation.

“Creativity cannot be legislated. It cannot be sustained by mission statements and pep talks. What needs to happen is you, as a manager, need to change the way you relate to people. Each encounter you have with another in the workplace needs to quicken the likelihood that their unexpressed ideas will get a fair hearing — enabling a far greater percentage of them to eventually take root.”

So the next time one of your people comes to you with an idea, be a Innovation Coach and help them develop the idea into something truly innovative.

Mitch suggests…

* “That sounds interesting. Can you tell me more?”
* “What excites you the most about this idea?”
* “What is the essence of your idea – the core principle?”
* “How do you imagine your idea will benefit others?”
* “In what ways does your idea fit with our strategic vision?”
* “What information do you still need?”
* “Who are your likely collaborators?”
* “Is there anything similar to your idea on the market?
* “What support do you need from me?”
* “What is your next step?”

1 comment »

Posted in Collaboration, Innovation, Leadership, Rob Jacobs

When is inequality constructive?

April 24th, 2009

By Candace Williams, An Aspiring Educator’s Blog

In the Boston Review article Inequality matters: Why globalization doesn’t lift all boats (via thickculture), Nancy Birdsall clarifies the distinction between constructive inequality and deconstructive inequality:

Distinguishing between constructive and destructive inequality is useful. To clarify the distinction: inequality is constructive when it creates positive incentives at the micro level. Such inequality reflects differences in individuals’ responses to equal opportunities and is consistent with efficient allocation of resources in an economy. In contrast, destructive inequality reflects privileges for the already rich and blocks potential for productive contributions of the less rich.

I’m used to thinking about issues of inequality and social justice on the macro-level. Inequality of social, economic, and political opportunity is one of the reasons why I teach and advocate for the rights of children. What about at the level of my classroom? When does inequality constructive or deconstructive in the context of pedagogies and learning environments? The most pervasive example of inequality teachers and administrators construct is grades. Although many schools try to make grades a reflection of how students are progressing on standards, the reality for many schools, is that grades both reflect and institutionalize tracks and hierarchies. Students with relatively higher grades have access to different pathways and resources than students who have relatively higher grades. There are different reasons why decision-makers at the classroom, school, and district level choose to have grades. In the classroom, I have noticed many teachers believe grades are an incentive structure: students and parents, on the whole, want higher grades rather than lower grades. Many are willing and able to change their behaviors to reflect this incentive.

Are grading I’ve seen examples of constructive or deconstructive inequality? On one hand, they are deconstructive because students are receiving marks on a scale without having access to the same academic and socioeconomic opportunities as their peers. Over time, students who fit into the culture of power and continue to have experiences that are valued by the school get higher grades, while students who do not have these opportunities get lower. The grades of students are compared and opportunities are doled out accordingly. This is deconstructive – the “potential for productive contributions” of struggling students is blocked. On the other hand, I have seen grading practices where the function and reason is feedback. When students are presented with qualitative and quantitative feedback about their performance, and have access to resources to improve, this feedback might alter micro-level incentives for them to engage in the process. This is more constructive than the case given above because the quality of resources and environments we offer children are not a function of their perceived level in academic hierarchies. Other examples of inequalities we construct are our classroom management schemes. They often feature preferred behaviors paired to positive and negative consequences that change a students’ academic and social reality.

Constructive and deconstructive inequalities exist in learning environments. Teachers have control over some of these inequalities, especially classroom management and community building structures. Administrators have more control over grading, curriculum, and tracking. Students also create their own inequalities via social hierarchies that are based on perceived intelligence, beauty, and other factors. Although teachers do not have complete control over the inequalities that manifest themselves in a classroom space, when it comes to the choices we make, we have to ask: “Am I generating inequality? If so, is this inequality constructive or deconstructive?”.

What are your thoughts? Does this distinction hold or does it rely too heavily on capitalist constructions?

2 comments »

Posted in Candace Williams, Grading, Inequality, Leadership, learning, Pedagogy, teaching

Switch to our mobile site