Category Archives: Blog

Five Dimensions of an Organizational Selfie

Posted on by
Reply

How are we doing as an organization? Are we successful? Are we doing a good job? How do we know? Perhaps we need an organizational selfie; a snapshot using data not pixels. Smile!

In our selfie culture we are accustomed to seeing self- and group-portraits. Some are formal and others are whimsical snapshots. No matter, anyone with a digital camera can show the world “This is me!” It is fun and it can be informative. Selfies can show us how we want to be seen. Selfies also can inform us about how others see us.

An organization selfie serves the same purpose. It displays the image that the organization puts forward to the world at large. I posit that this image has five dimensions. The first dimension is the stated purpose, mission, and function of the organization. This is the formal portrait of “this is why we exist.”

The second dimension is the face that the organization wants the world see. This is a staged set of snapshots that capture the organization at its work. These snapshots typically are full of people and smiles. This snapshot shows “who we are.”

The third dimension is the data snapshot. Data tell as many stories about an organization as its portraits of purpose and people. Data show the quantitative and qualitative profile of how well the people of the organization perform the purpose of the organization. Where smiles are friendly and warm, data seem impersonal and cold. However, data tell clear stories of “this is what we do.”

The fourth dimension is an organizational selfie response. This dimension displays “this is what the public thinks about our organization.” The fourth dimension are snapshots of people outside the organization looking at the organization and considering their cognitive impressions of the organization. This selfie is “what do people think about us, who we are, and what we do?”

The fifth dimension, like the fourth, is a response selfie. This dimension displays “this is how the public feels about this organization.” The fifth dimension is emotional and visceral. It may mirror or be completely different than the cognitive dimension, because feelings about the organization may vary from thoughts about the organization. This selfie is “how do people feel about us, who we are, and what we do?”

Healthy and dynamic organizations inspect these five dimensions with regularity. It is pleasing to see validation. It is reassuring to learn that there is congruity in the line up of purpose, composition, quantifiable and qualifiable data, and how the public thinks and feels about the organization. Validation gives confidence for continuity.

It is equally valuable, perhaps more valuable, to learn of incongruities. Self-analysis opens opportunities for affirming organizational qualities and addressing things that need to be changed in order to re-achieve congruity.

  • Are we doing what we purport to be doing? Is our purpose still viable today?
  • Are we who we believe we are? Are we skillful? Are we diverse? Does the composition of our membership contribute to fulfilling our purpose?
  • What conclusions do we reach from the data created by our productivity? What strengths are displayed by the data? What weaknesses? How should we respond to the data? How will we respond to the data?
  • Does what the public thinks about our organization match our self-image?
  • Does how the public feels about our organization match our self-image?
  • And, most importantly, what are we prepared to do now?

Everyday we observe selfie pictures posed on social media. Now and then, we ponder “What does the person/people in this selfie really think about what they have posted? Is this really them?” It is good to ponder the same about an organization. How an organization responds when looking at its five dimensional selfie is very telling about the integrity of the organization.

Two Rules: Administer the Policy and Do What Is Right for Children

Posted on by
Reply

“Rocks in the pocket” eventually cause most school administrators to leave their current position, wrote Jerry Patterson in The Anguish of Leadership (2000). Rocks are negative baggage. They are the unfavorable stories attached to a person’s reputation by those who are dissatisfied with the direction of leadership or did not get their way on an issue. They are the residue of scorn accrued by leaders who make leadership decisions that cause some to smile and others to frown. The weight of rocks, like the chains forged in life by Marley in Dickens’ Christmas Carol, eventually cause career mortality, because their accumulated weight drowns their owner in the political waters of public education.

It is impossible to be an active school leader and not pick up some rocks along the way. The simplest of decisions, such as keeping children indoors for recess on a rainy day, will cause someone to say “it was not raining that hard, “they could have gone outside” and that someone deposits a pebble in the principal’s pocket. On the other hand, sending all children out in a rainstorm would cause many people to drop a lot of pebbles in the principal’s pocket with the aggregated weight of a hefty rock.

Some pebbles and rocks are avoidable and may even be returned to sender if a principal follows two rules of the leadership road: execute the policy and do what is right for children.

“Here, fill this pocket with rocks,” is what a principal says when he tries to make children or parents or community members happy by “customizing” school rules or school board policy. Softening the consequences prescribed by policy may be a principal’s initial thought when looking into the sad face of a child alleged with a school rule infraction. “Do something to appease this sad child,” a principal’s inner voice says. Bending the rule “just a bit” may seem okay when confronted with a very supportive parent who understands the rules, but ekes out an “is that really necessary in this case.” “Just a bit” is the length or rope that that winds up being a noose. Letting something slide is the same as standing watch on quick sand; there are no secrets in schools and very quickly others expect the “bent rule” or the “let it go this time” to be the new status quo on school policies and rules. Within a few years, a principal’s pockets are so heavy with rocks that this principal begins to avoid making decisions, especially critical decisions. “How can I be blamed, if I don’t make the decision?” Decision avoidance doesn’t bring rocks; it brings boulders.

The easiest way to remain a “pebbles only” school leader is to be clear about your duty. You are hired to maintain an orderly and positive learning and teaching environment by doing the work assigned by your employer, the School Board. Number one on the job description for most principals is “administer Board policies and school rules” or a variation of that mandate.

Executing policy is not an act of compliance that is blind to the moment or the people involved. Being an educator first, a principal has perfect teachable moments to explain the rationale for a rule or the background to a policy. When a school board reviews and revises policy frequently in order to craft appropriate organizational and behavioral guidelines, policies have a context that should be explained and can be taught. As an enforcer of policy, a principal by design is a player in the writing of policy as well as a reviewer and reviser of policy. There should be very few school policies of which a principal can say “I was unaware of…” or “… am unfamiliar with this rule.” An active principal reads and studies and understands school policies and rules and purposefully talks with district leadership and the school board when policies and rules seem out of date or ineffective in guiding student, parent and community decisions. Policies and rules are living statements in a school and a principal is responsible for the quality of their life.

To enforce a rule is to provide clarity between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It is personally impersonal work. The resulting clarity of what the school expects and accepts can create a very positive and productive margin within which children and adults can use policy and rules for their individual and group success. At the same time, the margin allows these same school people to be creative in “pushing the envelope” of policies or rules to open new possibilities and opportunities. Principals who understand policies and rules and can help students and adults to explore new areas of behavior and school culture without falling into conflict with the school’s need for orderliness. Enforcing rules can be very liberating when a leader understands their intentions and goals. A leader who does this begins to unload rocks from his pockets, because he engenders respect as a leader rather than a “by the rules man.” School principalship, however, begins and ends with administering policy with integrity.

The second rule of the road is to always find the high ground of “doing what is right” for children. Sounds easy and sounds right, eh! But, what do you do when “what is right” for children is not shared by teachers and staff, or community adults, or parents? Seems odd that this contradiction might exist, but it rises all the time. The special interests of specific groups of people often are in conflict and the core of each conflict is control. Whose opinion will control the behavior of others? What students wear, how they behave in school, what they can say and do, how they use their time, what they eat and where they eat it, when they go to the bathroom – the list is endless – all are control issues. Some may say that decisions on these issues have safety and organizational implications or are based on “common sense.” Whose common sense will control the issue?

In almost all of these issues, the principal must be the spokesperson for children. Because children are not formally at the table for a discussion and decision of the issues that involve them, their opinions are given short shrift. Enter the principal! The principal’s high ground position must be “I will speak for what is right for the children in my school.” This white knight role does not mean the principal should uphold nonsensical child-based positions. Some things children want to wear, do, say and have in their school will go beyond every adult’s common sense. Nonsensical as they often be, children still need to be represented at the adult’s table and that representative person must be the principal. There is a sincere sense of pride and purpose when a principal self-acknowledges that “this decision is right for children” and that is what really matters.

A principal who conscientiously administers Board policies and school rules and takes the high ground of doing what is right for children is a school leader who will not be drowned by the weight of rocks in the pockets.

Myopic-Tending Educators Must See Digital Reading Clearly

Posted on by
Reply

Educators are chronically myopic by choice. We also tend to favor the rear view mirror. Let us enlarge our vision to be forward thinking and see learning to read from multiple formats as our desired goal for all children.

As a retired principal, curriculum director, superintendent and now a school board member, I am compulsively interested in the research and literature about reading instruction. However, as a grandfather, my interest has geometrically increased. How should my grandchildren, representing all children, learn to read in the digital age? A myopic and lover or the rear view mirror says, “Well, just like we all were taught to read. Reading does not change with the flipping of a calendar.”

I commend the following article for all grandfather’s reading (others also may choose to read it). My commendation results from the author’s examination of non-linear reading. I truly understand the bias of traditionalists who prefer to teach reading through print material that is unattached to other references and extraneous leads for peripheral inquiry. Reading and intellectually considering print on paper appeals to my nostalgic and romantic leanings about reading, also. Would a lover of books want to read any other way?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/11/09/how-should-reading-be-taught-in-digital-era.html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr-desk

That said, a reading instructor who attempts to avoid the reality of our digital and technological age is at the front of the line for Luddite-of-the-Year.

“Ahem! And, what should we do when children are distracted by the links to related media, other resources, and reader comments about the digital material they encounter in online reading material?”, my myopic cronies ask.

They are correct in pointing to the fact that by design unilinear print material is free of “Y” intersections. A “Y” intersection allows the reader to stay with the text at hand or take off down a new tangent of interest suggested by the text. The new tangent may be a hyperlink to another text(s)or embedded media. And, each new tangent may have its own links and media references. The fact that printed reading material does not contain any these lines of interaction is what makes teaching for an understanding of the assigned text a preferred instructional modus operendi for the myopic. Dealing with the text only is a cleaner and simpler design for teaching and learning.

Being unilinear, however, does not mean that reading a complex printed text is easy. A page in an economics text, passages of Shakespeare, a proof of a geometry problem, and the Periodic Table each requires the reader to call upon a plethora of prior knowledge, use many higher order thinking skills, and pose a variety of hypotheses to be checked out through reading. Reading unilinear texts may lead the reader to have several printed resources spread out before her. The reader makes the linkages between resources. Sound familiar and traditional – it is. And, there is a definite need and place for students to learn with unilinear reading material.

The world, however, has become poly-directional and children today are a true reflection of their world. In almost every aspect of their daily living, children are confronted with a barrage of informational segments and every segment contains a plethora of “Y” intersections. Parallel to the constant flood of information is the compacting of their attention span. At the earliest age, children are aware that if their television show doesn’t grab their attention in the first few minutes, they have dozens of opportunities immediately available – just click up or down on the remote. Children make hundreds of decisions every hour about what the see and hear and do. And, their brains are evolving to allow them to live like this. Research indicates that the attention span for adults in 2000 was twenty seconds; by 2015 the adult attention span was eight seconds. And, eight seconds be generous for a digital-aged child who is growing up in a world of increasing and instant information bursts.

It seems very logical then to instruct children to read within the informational environment in which they must live and thrive. We must teach to find meaning quickly by developing their sight vocabulary of contemporary and technical words. We must teach them to compare and contrast ideas by looking at the supporting facts. Often those facts and supporting evidence will be found in the links and media embedded in what they read. We must teach them when to abandon intersections in their information because a pathway does not illuminate their study. Or, to note the pathway for future reading based upon the merits of its information. We must teach them to discern relevance and significance. We must teach them how to focus, to endure beyond their usual attention span when the hard work of reading for comprehension and interpretation of meaning is essential to their intellectual growth. We, educators, can do this.

As the adults in the room, children cannot afford nor abide our myopic wish to teach reading as we were taught to read decades ago. We owe them the honesty of teaching them to read and learn using the informational presentation of their and our world today.

The Public Gets What It Settles For – Stop Settling Low

Posted on by
Reply

Louise Sawyer (Thelma and Louise, 1991) taught us “You get what you settle for.” Hearing Susan Sarandon voice these words many years ago, I found that they apply all too well to the many situations in public education today where we have settled for low and gotten even less. And, once settled low, it is harder than heck to get anything better.

My finger points at us, the public. In too many states and too many communities we have allowed public education to be so disparaged that the resulting lowly state of affairs has caused teachers to lose their passion and teaching to lose its appeal for talented teacher candidates. Disparaged by governors using education funding to balance state budgets. Disparaged by parents who have used arguments for school choice to demean public education. Disparaged by legislation that purposefully stunts educator salary and benefits to keep promises to taxpayers. Disparaged by community members who believe that public employees are a drain on their personal wealth. Disparaged by anyone with an axe to grind, we, the public, are settling for a public education that will not give us what we need to get from our public schools.

The “this is what you get for settling low” is the exodus of educator talent from public schools. Many of our best and brightest teachers also will be best and brightest in other endeavors. By the thousands, talented educators annually choose to leave their schools for careers that will appreciate their talent and passion. The loss of this talent has become irreplaceable. Doubling down on the problem is the reality that the next generation of best and brightest career-seekers do not give the merest of consideration to education as their career of choice. Why should they volunteer to be disparaged? Why should they volunteer to be under appreciated? The best and brightest of the current and most recent generations do not become educators. As a result, every state struggles for find the talented teachers that children deserve. Richly trained teacher candidates are a rarity today. In fact, teacher candidates of any quality are rare in most states. The result of career disparagement is a growing number of schools beginning and finishing the school year with unqualified substitutes as permanent teachers. State government deepens the “low” settlement by endorsing local school boards to hire non-teachers to teach. The depth of our current low now allows high school graduates with “qualified work experience” to be employed as teachers. In our current state of low settling, almost any body will suffice as a classroom supervisor – not a teacher.

If I overuse the term “disparage”, it is with purpose. Synonyms for this word are: belittle, denigrate, depreciate, trivialize, undervalue, underrate, and play down. Read any contemporary educational journal and count the number of articles with one of these words as its theme. Listen to radio broadcasts of state legislators talking “live from the statehouse” and the positions they take on public education. Examine the names of the funding groups of TV broadsides proposing educational reform; the names that are in the small print, to understand the forces that disparage public schools. Read the “teacher wanted” job postings that are a fixture in local newspapers. Read any of the literature of the PAC-based education foundations, like EdChoice.com, to understand their argument for school choice at the disparagement of public school. The term is used because it is the right word for this argument.

My argument is not a “poor teacher” rant. Within every high quality teacher is the passion to cause children to learn. This passion is in their bones and greater than monetary compensation. However, all passion is vulnerable to continual denigration. The argument is based on the overwhelming social, cultural, economic, political and educational value that public school has brought to our nation. The American Dream and public school are entwined. Settling low for what we want to get from public education today will have consequences for the nation we get in our future. I loved the Thunderbird that Thelma and Louise drove, but to avoid their inevitable fatality, let us not allow public school be driven over the cliff.

My argument cannot close on such a low and dismal note. Whereas, it is unwise to think that the strong community support of local schools in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s will return, it is wise to describe a new kind of support that will raise the community value of public schools. We will not and cannot see PTA groups of stay-at-home mothers rallying to every school initiative as they did decades ago. In our new age of virtual and seemingly offhand commitments, we, you and me and our fellow citizens, can assist a revitalization of community support for public schools. My finger points at –

• our demanding highly qualified teachers in every classroom and a refusal to settle for “any body.” Insist that School Boards do not settle low in their employment practices.

• our recognition that high quality teachers are more than content and skill instructors. For many children, the teacher in the classroom is a mentor, a role model, a guide and many become a life-long friend. These quality relationships are difficult to quantify as a monetary value; they are priceless.

• our understanding that many parents choose public schools as their school of “choice. Parents choose their family residence based upon school districts. Moms and Dads choose public schools that resemble their positive experiences in the public schools they attended. Parents often identify a particular strength in a local school’s academic, arts, activities and athletic programs that they want for their children. Public school is a wonderful choice.

• our being informed that choices are good things. School choice is a good thing. But, all schools need to be available for the choosing. We need to respect all choices and the schools that are chosen.

• our appreciation that many parents cannot afford financially or in their family commitments the needs of a charter or voucher program. For families just starting economically or who have become economically disadvantaged, public school is their only school.

• our knowledge that strong schools are essential for a strong community. Schools may be the community recreation and entertainment center. School teams and activity groups create essential community identity and pride. Schools also are essential responders to community tragedies and critical events. These schools may be public, private, or parochial. Strong communities need them all.

These will not happen by accident. They will happen because we, the public, refuse to settle low regarding our schools and our teachers. And, by raising the bar for what we settle for, we will get even more.

Don’t Choose To Be Your Own Obstacle

Posted on by
Reply

In a culture of “we/they”, the issue of “they” can dominate thinking and action to the extent that seldom are things of any common good ever accomplished. When a mind is fixated on oppositional thinking, it is difficult to engage in propositional outcomes. When this happens, one needs to either dramatically change one’s predispositions or, as in a hockey face off when two opponents are not able to “settle in for a face off”, one needs to step aside and let those who are able to face off do the necessary work. To approach problem-solving with oppositional thinking is to see the world of possibilities with one eye only.

I am fortunate that both of my eyes function well. Also, as with all Homo Sapiens, my eyes are positioned for forward-sight and are bi-focal. With both eyes open, I can see things in their three dimensions. As many of us do now and then, I close one eye to simulate what it must be like to see from one eye only. Invariably with only one eye open, I turn my head to see things peripherally. Closing one eye narrows my field of vision by at least one half, perhaps more. Additionally, I find myself moving my head from side-to-side in the attempt to gain the dimension of distance. Seeing with one eye only robs my brain of visual depth. Perhaps over time my brain could accommodate this, but in the immediacy of looking at the world with one eye only I have no depth perception.

With one eye only, my understanding of the world before me is limited. I cannot see all that is before me and I cannot see both of my peripheries. And, with one eye only, I lack my natural depth perception. I cannot accurately judge the distance of objects before me and I am subject to either standing still or bumping into things.

I believe that this is the dilemma that people with parochial thinking face when confronted with diverse propositions. Their singular point of view disables their brains’ capacity for propositional thinking. They cannot see new peripheries and can focus only the objects of their desire without seeing the breadth of possibilities or the depth of alternatives.

My argument does not disregard informed fervor. When one has studied a variety of options with an open mind to the validity and potentiality of all and has settled on an “informed” best, fervor for that decision is logical and proper. However, fervor without being adequately informed is blind ambition.

As a child, I often heard my parents say when dividing arguing siblings and trying to settle the dispute, “It takes two to tango.” Start getting along and work things out together, they would say. I always thought they said, “It takes two to tangle.” Perhaps my mishearing heard the right message. Parochial thinking when no one else is involved may be harmless in the immediacy. But, when others are involved and each is applying a self-narrowed mind set, it truly does take to two to tango (or disentangle). One person alone cannot alter their thinking to create a more harmonious outcome; each party needs to make accommodations. Without mutuality of accommodation, resentment will be a constant irritant that will eventually erupt into future dispute.

Therapists undoubtedly see a great deal of professional “couch” work in the world of narrow-minded thinkers. Short of therapy, my recommendation is the same as we give to all persons when they arrive at a significant intersection. “Stop. Wait. Look. Listen. Proceed with caution.” This admonition is more than apt when applied to persons arriving at the intersection of ideas and points of view. Stopping, waiting and looking allows our bifocular vision to work properly. Stopping to look necessitates a cessation of forward momentum in the current direction. Stopping to stand still is a conscious act. Waiting allows everything around you to find a point of reference. With reference points, what you see is not observed as things passing constantly to the rearward but as subjects worthy of your notice. Looking while stationary allows one to truly see what lies before and around you, like a large truck barreling down the street from your right. Or objects of beauty and ideas of significance. And, then listening. This requires a commitment to trying to hear what the world and others around you are saying.

This works! It has no out-of-pocket costs. It can be applied anywhere and anytime. It provides a role model for others. And, it does not preclude continuing in the same direction at the same pace if stopping, waiting, looking and listening presents new and viable information.

Sometimes we are our own greatest obstacle to our successful understanding of our world. Observing our world with one eye closed limits our opportunity to understand. We should not choose to be our own obstacles.