The ABC's of Leading High School Change

The current buzz about XQ Super School Project and efforts to stimulate rethinking high school education is an exciting opportunity for some and for others a hope that this effort will be different. There is no shortage of innovative models of high school, there is a shortage of school communities with a willingness to change. Innovative models have to be coupled with different measures of effectiveness and a different mindset among leaders on how to change this stable institution that we all have a love/hate relationship with. I wrote nearly a decade ago based upon the analysis of practices in some of the most rapidly improving schools. I
crafted the list of common characteristics into the “ABC’s of Leading High School Change. These 26 items form an agenda of titles for high school improvement efforts. Here is link to a copy of the full 26 items. The first three, labeled with the letters A,B and C frame the critical elements of this three pronged approach to high school improvement.

Aspire for Rigor, Relevance and Relationships is a simple phrase to constantly remind educators what the personal behaviors and instructional experiences in should be in school. Regardless of the subject you define, depth of learning you desire or assessments you build, rigor/relevance/relationships will guide to good work.

Begin with the End in Mind is not only an effective instructional planning process, championed by Wiggins and McTighe, it is a challenge to rethink how we measure high school success. As long as parents place a priority on high school getting their son or daughter in the “right” college, schools will not change. As long as student build lasting memories from a school prom rather than a student project, high school will not change. As long a states count students by grade level, fund schools on attendance and rank schools on test scores, high schools will not change. High school change begins at the end, in defining high school success differently.

Consider Schools a Living Biological System challenges school leaders to rethink their mental model about school organizations. Schools are dynamic ecosystems, constantly affective the the community in which they reside. Teaching is not a linear process that can be controlled regardless of the quality of teacher and teaching materials. Leaders need to use mental model that is more like an wildlife expert trying to grow an endangered species or farmer trying to grow a productive crop. Leaders provide the basics, let nature take its course and gently intervene as appropriate.

I am hopeful about the impact of the XQ SuperSchool Project. Perhaps this list of ABC’s adapted from the publication
Leading High School Change resource kit written for the International Center for Leadership in Education. That publication is out of print, but the lessons from rapidly improving schools is still valid.

Performance Management is an Oxymoron

I recently read a definition of performance management from the Reform Support Network which supports the Race To TheTop efforts in the various state education agencies. The definition of performance management and the practices described are counter to my experiences of how outstanding school leadership and actual school improvement. The very term performance management is an oxymoron. The definition of oxymoron is a phrase that contains words when put together are contradictory such as “jumbo shrimp.” We do not manage performance! We may manage resources, manage projects or manage processes. The management aspect for resources, projects and processes is to reduce waste, meet expectations and meet timelines. There are a variety of management practices to ensure that these go well.

We do historically use the term managing people, but more recent literature argues we should talk about leading people, while we manage the resources and procedures within the organization. Management is about bringing effort to a narrow focus, standardizing practices and procedures and using resources efficiently.

Schools and education systems are complex organizations that are made up of millions of interactions among students, staff and parents. We all aspire to maximum performance of the education professionals. However, when we attempt to manage practices, such as those outlined in this overview of performance management, we may create the opposite effect. I believe this is a source of much of the criticism of implementation of Common Core Standards and Race To The Top projects.

The key elements of performance management outlined in this Reform Support Network definition include clarity of outcomes, alignment of resources, collection and use of data and accountability for results. These may be useful management practices, however I would argue they will not yield maximum performance of professionals in education.

Instead of managing performance, we
coach performance, we inspire performance and we recognize performance. We can easily use a number of sports metaphors to make this point. We admire and recognize outstanding sports performances. Sports champions did not arrive at this outstanding performance through a management system. We do not manage the performance of these outstanding individuals, we coach in support and guide them. The same is true in education, if we expect high levels of performance from our educators, we should focus on coaching, inspiring and recognizing performance instead of managing it.

Clarity of outcomes is important. But when every person must aspire for the same identical outcomes, we distort the organization since not everyone is interested in that outcome. Dan Pink, in his book
Drive clearly identifies one of the key elements that leads to high levels of motivation is autonomy and choice. While schools and education needs to have a collective vision, professionals in that system will strive for higher level performance when they have some choice and autonomy. The efforts under Race To The Top have reduced teacher autonomy.

Data is important, but remember the drive to higher levels of performance needs to come from within the individual. Individuals must own their on data. When we make individuals aware of their performance through quantitative measures, it can inspire greater effort on their part. Data needs to be used to inform rather than indict.

Accountability is not punishing, but more removing the secrecy to that performance and not allowing performance to be a private occurrence. Individuals strive for higher levels of performance when more people are aware and observe the performance. Weak teaching can occur when no one observes the teaching. However, too much accountability becomes stifling to increasing performance. A useful metaphor here is the deer in the headlights scenario. The bright illumination of car headlights that shines on a wild deer in the middle of the road does not inspire outstanding performance. In contrast, it often inspires fear and inaction, rather than movement and escape. I think the same can be true of educators when accountability is a bright spotlight from far away. This drastic accountability spotlight instills fear and inaction in our educators.

Accountability also needs to be a shared accountability. Teams perform better than individuals and when that accountability is accepted among entire team, it can inspire great performance by all members of those teams. The teacher evaluation mandates actually reduce shared accountability.

We need to change our mindset if we expect educators to perform at higher levels. We need to move away from believing that we can manage high levels of performance to efforts that inspire recognize and coach outstanding performance in this complex enterprise we call school..

Pope Francis - Model of Leader in Complex Adaptive System

It remains to be seen, over time, the lasting leadership impact that Pope Francis will have on the Roman Catholic church, but as a new leader, he clearly exhibits leadership behaviors that are valuable lessons for other leaders in other complex organizations. Read More...

Making our schools safe AND…

When we discuss school safety as a singular objective of schools, we can easily distort school communities from their broader purposes. The primary purpose of schools is not safety. The primary purpose of schools is learning. When we leave off that important proposition of AND, we create the illusion that we only need to focus on safety. We can sacrifice learning and the powerful elements of an effective school. As we collectively grieve about the tragic events in Newtown and we collectively work to improve school security, do not makes school security the sole purpose of education. Think about security AND the characteristics that will not only protect our students but lead them to a positive educated future. A perfectly safe school that is unwelcome, disengaged and irrelevant is not what our students or our nation need. Read More...

Bringing Passion Back to Teaching

Nearly every teacher I talk with these days expresses how sad it is that our education initiatives, created in the for the purpose of improvement, leave them questioning their decision to enter the profession. Teachers, once passionate about the profession they love, now find is burdensome and dull. I hear so often the phrase, “I miss being able to really teach!” Read More...