Posts
In response to the posts relating to “Gant Wisdom 1,” a reader writes:
"SC has it; have an agenda for the meetings and stick to it. Stick to the agenda. Have groups of a reasonable size. A faculty meeting with 150 members present has only one purpose, to put out information. Sometimes these large faculty meetings are needed. If so, stick to the agenda, and don't accept off-topic questions (especially comments) during the meeting. Anyone with a question should be directed to see you after the meeting, and you had best be available.
In small groups, have an agenda and stick to it. Obtain your objective and adjourn. If someone has something they want to discuss in the group forum, have them discuss the request with you and then YOU determine if it makes the agenda on the next meeting. Keep an open door policy so that anyone with any concern can at least meet with you one on one.
Your team should have the right to meet with you privately for any concern. Getting a public forum is another matter."
SC Response
I have found that if leadership is constantly visible and available (in classrooms, hallways, intake, dismissal and lunches) and is consistently coaching and listening to staff, that the need for long meetings is greatly reduced. It is when leadership is remote and inaccessible that meetings become longer and longer. There are requisite amounts of communication that all organizations need to function. The question becomes how will this be delivered; in small, consistent doses or one massive dose?
Before you answer, consider the following paradox. From a managerial perspective small, consistent doses of communication are an inefficient use of time. Large doses of communication are an effective use of time.
But from a leadership perspective, small, consistent doses of communication are effective. Large doses of communication are ineffective. Who are you a manager or a leader?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Reader Writes... (Gant Wisdon 1 - Part 3)
In response to the posts relating to “Gant Wisdom 1,” a reader writes:
"SC, we will have to disagree on this one. Once a faculty gets a strong sense of family, the principal may be in trouble. The "family" in dysfunctional schools typically does not include students. Take two districts of which we are both intimately familiar. Both districts have expended tremendous energy and policy decisions making the schools great places for employees to work. There is a true sense of family. Yet the schools are horrible for kids. In previous schools I have worked in there was a tremendous sense of family, not including kids of course. Collegiality is what we need, not congeniality.
We must come together and work together for a common purpose. That purpose must be to improve our schools for kids. Congenial schools that I have seen ALWAYS have focused on making the school better for adults. Example: we get together, talk all day about how to make things better for kids, and then go to happy hour and enjoy each other's company. That is collegiality.
Or, we get together, spend all day “bonding,” focusing on each other. That is congeniality. The only difference is the purpose of the day. Having served in the military and in law enforcement, I can tell you we were truly colleagues. We trained together, did our duty together, and often bled together. We loved each other like brothers, but we always had a common purpose.
In congenial relationships the purpose is what is often missing. The difference is subtle, but significant. As you say, SC, the difference is in the nuance. Having experienced both, I fully understand the nuance."
SC Response
The source of our disagreement is the eternal question of whether or not the glass is half full or half empty and the context of position. Where you are, the glass is half empty (and held together by duct tape). Where I am, the glass is half full (and held together by duct tape).
We are in total agreement that where you are now is in the final death throws of total system failure brought on by leadership incompetence that best resembles Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Get out and let it burn.
But from my position, the failure of that same system has the potential to save 100’s of other districts. I am more that willing to let the aggressively incompetent serve as the “what not to do” example for those who are willing to push themselves and their organizations to maximize student potential.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
"SC, we will have to disagree on this one. Once a faculty gets a strong sense of family, the principal may be in trouble. The "family" in dysfunctional schools typically does not include students. Take two districts of which we are both intimately familiar. Both districts have expended tremendous energy and policy decisions making the schools great places for employees to work. There is a true sense of family. Yet the schools are horrible for kids. In previous schools I have worked in there was a tremendous sense of family, not including kids of course. Collegiality is what we need, not congeniality.
We must come together and work together for a common purpose. That purpose must be to improve our schools for kids. Congenial schools that I have seen ALWAYS have focused on making the school better for adults. Example: we get together, talk all day about how to make things better for kids, and then go to happy hour and enjoy each other's company. That is collegiality.
Or, we get together, spend all day “bonding,” focusing on each other. That is congeniality. The only difference is the purpose of the day. Having served in the military and in law enforcement, I can tell you we were truly colleagues. We trained together, did our duty together, and often bled together. We loved each other like brothers, but we always had a common purpose.
In congenial relationships the purpose is what is often missing. The difference is subtle, but significant. As you say, SC, the difference is in the nuance. Having experienced both, I fully understand the nuance."
SC Response
The source of our disagreement is the eternal question of whether or not the glass is half full or half empty and the context of position. Where you are, the glass is half empty (and held together by duct tape). Where I am, the glass is half full (and held together by duct tape).
We are in total agreement that where you are now is in the final death throws of total system failure brought on by leadership incompetence that best resembles Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Get out and let it burn.
But from my position, the failure of that same system has the potential to save 100’s of other districts. I am more that willing to let the aggressively incompetent serve as the “what not to do” example for those who are willing to push themselves and their organizations to maximize student potential.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Seabolt Says... Accountability Crisis
In response to the question about special education accountability, Seabolt says:
“This is a tricky situation. If a student is TAKS-M in science, I generally make them TAKS-M in math, and vice versa. Same for ELA and social studies.
It is more difficult to justify an ELA - math connection. One clever approach I have seen is to put kids in both regular and resource classes in the 9th grade. JM did this, as did I in my last school. The resource class was restructured to be an on grade level support of the regular class with a modified curriculum, of course. If the student failed the regular class, the resource class was there for credit. You can justify this as using the resource class as an intervention.
Now let's look at this strategy closely. All 9th graders start as regular TAKS or TAK-ACC. If the student passes the regular course at mid-term with little modification, you have a TAKS-ACC student. If the student fails the regular class and passes the resource class, you have a TAKS-M student. You make this decision at mid-term. If the student is passing regular courses use the resource classes, as needed, as an intervention and take TAKS-ACC, you take the high road and they are recommended. If not, you take the low road.
This changes the philosophy of resource to one of on grade level intervention instead of primary instruction and gives the student full opportunity and flexibility. You can continue this for all grade levels, making adjustments as needed for the student. If the student passes regular math in grade 9, leave them TAKS-ACC. If in grade 10 at mid-term they are failing regular math or if they failed the TAKS-ACC, you can move them to TAKS-M.
You must be diligent, monitor instruction closely, and use common assessments to measure instructional quality in order for this process to be successful for your most fragile learners. In the above example, a student passing 9th grade math and 9th grade TAKS-ACC and then failing the regular math course at the mid-term in 10th grade would catch my full attention. And my full attention would include a focus on the teacher delivering the 10th grade instruction."
MS
Your turn...
“This is a tricky situation. If a student is TAKS-M in science, I generally make them TAKS-M in math, and vice versa. Same for ELA and social studies.
It is more difficult to justify an ELA - math connection. One clever approach I have seen is to put kids in both regular and resource classes in the 9th grade. JM did this, as did I in my last school. The resource class was restructured to be an on grade level support of the regular class with a modified curriculum, of course. If the student failed the regular class, the resource class was there for credit. You can justify this as using the resource class as an intervention.
Now let's look at this strategy closely. All 9th graders start as regular TAKS or TAK-ACC. If the student passes the regular course at mid-term with little modification, you have a TAKS-ACC student. If the student fails the regular class and passes the resource class, you have a TAKS-M student. You make this decision at mid-term. If the student is passing regular courses use the resource classes, as needed, as an intervention and take TAKS-ACC, you take the high road and they are recommended. If not, you take the low road.
This changes the philosophy of resource to one of on grade level intervention instead of primary instruction and gives the student full opportunity and flexibility. You can continue this for all grade levels, making adjustments as needed for the student. If the student passes regular math in grade 9, leave them TAKS-ACC. If in grade 10 at mid-term they are failing regular math or if they failed the TAKS-ACC, you can move them to TAKS-M.
You must be diligent, monitor instruction closely, and use common assessments to measure instructional quality in order for this process to be successful for your most fragile learners. In the above example, a student passing 9th grade math and 9th grade TAKS-ACC and then failing the regular math course at the mid-term in 10th grade would catch my full attention. And my full attention would include a focus on the teacher delivering the 10th grade instruction."
MS
Your turn...
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A Reader Shares... Accountability Crisis of Conscious
One of the original LYS readers submits the following:
"Well, I have heard of situations like this, but until now had never been introduced to one (even in a dysfunctional system and I have seen a couple of those). I am really torn.
What is the situation? I sat in a meeting today where the discussion was on how best to address our accountability situation (AU) with our TAKS-M students in mind. I understand the pressure to do what is needed to make sure we get as many students as possible on the pass list (AA was just a few students away.) But, how do you resolve an accountability crisis of conscience when the PBMAS shows that in the area of SPED you are stage 2 and have a 3 in several areas, including too many TAKS-M students and too few TAKS/TAKS-Acc students?
With the change in the law as to who is qualified to take TAKS-M to include both modifications and accommodations and TAKS-M is an indicator of a student who is more than one year from grade level mastery, should TAKS-M students remain in that category even if they have a greater than needed mastery level?
Should a student who has the credits and ability to take TAKS-Acc (and earn a recommended diploma) be relegated to TAKS-M and the minimal plan? What does it really mean to see the "big" picture in this case? Where is the defining line?"
SC Response:
CL, call me if this doesn’t help. There are two dimensions to your dilemma, the macro-answer and the micro-answer. I’m going to respond to both. But I defer to the LYS Nation on the specifics, regarding coding requirements. First, the micro-response
There are two major considerations to your dilemma at the micro level. The first is student centered. The primary goal at the High School level must be graduation, especially for schools that are in crisis. Course work and testing decisions must be made to put the student in the best possible position to earn the most rigorous diploma that is realistically feasible. If I’m going to gamble with a student’s future, I’m looking for the low risk, high reward option. But I’m not going to sell a student short just to hedge my personal bet.
The second micro consideration is accountability related. In the short run, you have to play the game in order to stay in the game long enough to fix the system. That means that if you have to choose between fixing state accountability or federal accountability, fix the one that is most critical (i.e. the one that will shut you down the quickest). Buy some time and live to fight tomorrow.
At the macro-level, fix the system at full speed. When a campus goes AU (or has a significant ratings drop), that is the final symptom of system failure. Everything is on the table at this point. The key is to quit focusing on the symptom (student performance) and attack the problem (the instructional delivery machine). And fixing the machine is a leadership responsibility.
That is my quick take on an all too common problem. However, you and I need to hear more from the LYS Nation. Specifically, E. Don, John, Mike, Lynn and Pam, what would you add?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
"Well, I have heard of situations like this, but until now had never been introduced to one (even in a dysfunctional system and I have seen a couple of those). I am really torn.
What is the situation? I sat in a meeting today where the discussion was on how best to address our accountability situation (AU) with our TAKS-M students in mind. I understand the pressure to do what is needed to make sure we get as many students as possible on the pass list (AA was just a few students away.) But, how do you resolve an accountability crisis of conscience when the PBMAS shows that in the area of SPED you are stage 2 and have a 3 in several areas, including too many TAKS-M students and too few TAKS/TAKS-Acc students?
With the change in the law as to who is qualified to take TAKS-M to include both modifications and accommodations and TAKS-M is an indicator of a student who is more than one year from grade level mastery, should TAKS-M students remain in that category even if they have a greater than needed mastery level?
Should a student who has the credits and ability to take TAKS-Acc (and earn a recommended diploma) be relegated to TAKS-M and the minimal plan? What does it really mean to see the "big" picture in this case? Where is the defining line?"
SC Response:
CL, call me if this doesn’t help. There are two dimensions to your dilemma, the macro-answer and the micro-answer. I’m going to respond to both. But I defer to the LYS Nation on the specifics, regarding coding requirements. First, the micro-response
There are two major considerations to your dilemma at the micro level. The first is student centered. The primary goal at the High School level must be graduation, especially for schools that are in crisis. Course work and testing decisions must be made to put the student in the best possible position to earn the most rigorous diploma that is realistically feasible. If I’m going to gamble with a student’s future, I’m looking for the low risk, high reward option. But I’m not going to sell a student short just to hedge my personal bet.
The second micro consideration is accountability related. In the short run, you have to play the game in order to stay in the game long enough to fix the system. That means that if you have to choose between fixing state accountability or federal accountability, fix the one that is most critical (i.e. the one that will shut you down the quickest). Buy some time and live to fight tomorrow.
At the macro-level, fix the system at full speed. When a campus goes AU (or has a significant ratings drop), that is the final symptom of system failure. Everything is on the table at this point. The key is to quit focusing on the symptom (student performance) and attack the problem (the instructional delivery machine). And fixing the machine is a leadership responsibility.
That is my quick take on an all too common problem. However, you and I need to hear more from the LYS Nation. Specifically, E. Don, John, Mike, Lynn and Pam, what would you add?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A Reader Writes... (Problem with a Co-Worker - Part 2)
In response to the posts relating to “Problems with a Co-worker,” a reader writes:
“I have worked in Scenario 5 districts, more than once. In those cases I made the decision to do what was right for kids. In those districts the accountability scores were horrible, and the board demanded improvement. The teachers were the problem; they did not want to teach kids.
I did was right for kids and insisted that teachers improve. The teachers screamed “foul” - loud and often. The board wanted improvement, but they did not want to listen to teacher griping. This goes back to some Brown wisdom, “School Boards exist to hear the complaints of teachers.”
I held the course despite the cries of “foul.” The board became agitated with the increasing complaints, which fueled the fire for even more complaints. I held the course. In the end the board was ready for me to go in order to keep teachers happy. I accepted a job in a bigger district and soon after my announcement, we learned that the school had moved from academically unacceptable to recognized.
The board caved, I didn't, and the students won. But beware; don't forget the part where I had to leave. Would I do it again the same way? No doubt about it.”
SC Response:
I have a friend who is a Superintendent who once observed, “Every Board wants change, as long as it is easy.” Adults and systems often settle for the path of least resistance. There is considerable comfort and power in the status quo. Conventional wisdom even reminds us, “If it’s broke, don’t fix it.” To constantly question the status quo requires a slightly different kind of personality.
That’s one reason why this blog exists. If you subscribe to Richardson’s philosophy of “If it’s not broke, break it;” or Brown’s philosophy of “The Principal is the only pure advocate for students;” or Schaper’s philosophy of “They may be turds, but they’re MY turds;” or Brezina’s philosophy of "If it's not right for kids, it's wrong;” then you have an inner obligation to constantly challenge and improve the system. And as I am often reminded, that obligation makes you the "freak." Or, at least the freak within your system.
But what I have discovered is that there are isolated “freaks” everywhere. All they need is the knowledge that there are other freaks out there who are pushing and pulling their systems as hard as they are. And with that knowledge brings courage and stronger conviction.
As the LYS nation is well aware, the issue is not “those kids or those parents.” The issue is complacent adults. So keep pushing and pulling, they louder the complacent complain, the faster they are being moved from the status quo. And if the status quo is untapped student potential, a double digit achievement gap, and high drop out rates, why is that a bad thing?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
“I have worked in Scenario 5 districts, more than once. In those cases I made the decision to do what was right for kids. In those districts the accountability scores were horrible, and the board demanded improvement. The teachers were the problem; they did not want to teach kids.
I did was right for kids and insisted that teachers improve. The teachers screamed “foul” - loud and often. The board wanted improvement, but they did not want to listen to teacher griping. This goes back to some Brown wisdom, “School Boards exist to hear the complaints of teachers.”
I held the course despite the cries of “foul.” The board became agitated with the increasing complaints, which fueled the fire for even more complaints. I held the course. In the end the board was ready for me to go in order to keep teachers happy. I accepted a job in a bigger district and soon after my announcement, we learned that the school had moved from academically unacceptable to recognized.
The board caved, I didn't, and the students won. But beware; don't forget the part where I had to leave. Would I do it again the same way? No doubt about it.”
SC Response:
I have a friend who is a Superintendent who once observed, “Every Board wants change, as long as it is easy.” Adults and systems often settle for the path of least resistance. There is considerable comfort and power in the status quo. Conventional wisdom even reminds us, “If it’s broke, don’t fix it.” To constantly question the status quo requires a slightly different kind of personality.
That’s one reason why this blog exists. If you subscribe to Richardson’s philosophy of “If it’s not broke, break it;” or Brown’s philosophy of “The Principal is the only pure advocate for students;” or Schaper’s philosophy of “They may be turds, but they’re MY turds;” or Brezina’s philosophy of "If it's not right for kids, it's wrong;” then you have an inner obligation to constantly challenge and improve the system. And as I am often reminded, that obligation makes you the "freak." Or, at least the freak within your system.
But what I have discovered is that there are isolated “freaks” everywhere. All they need is the knowledge that there are other freaks out there who are pushing and pulling their systems as hard as they are. And with that knowledge brings courage and stronger conviction.
As the LYS nation is well aware, the issue is not “those kids or those parents.” The issue is complacent adults. So keep pushing and pulling, they louder the complacent complain, the faster they are being moved from the status quo. And if the status quo is untapped student potential, a double digit achievement gap, and high drop out rates, why is that a bad thing?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Sunday, November 8, 2009
A Reader Writes... (Gant Wisdom 1 - Part 2)
In response to the post, “Gant Wisdom,” a reader writes:
“Great advice and I totally believe it. But how do you handle it when you are on a team with people with issues and you have to work together?”
SC Response
Your “easy” questions are always the most difficult to answer. Context is always the critical issue. The problem you present is always easier to solve in theory than in practice. And by that I mean if you work with a toxic jerk, you are just better off avoiding the cancer until leadership is forced to address the situation.
But let’s assume the other person has some redeeming qualities. When that is the case, stay focused on the task at hand and work to find common ground. If you have to plan together, use Schmoker’s 30 minute planning agenda. It is a very scripted process that strips away most of the opportunities for chit-chat and griping. You go in, you work, and you get out.
If the issue is philosophical, stay focused on student performance and results. What is better, phonics or whole language? I don’t care as long as my kids can read.
If the issue is that the other person is jealous or lazy, just out work them. That person won’t be happy until you are slower or worse than they are. You and your students deserve better.
I hope I touched on your issue. If not, send me a follow up. How but you, LYS Nation? Any ideas?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
“Great advice and I totally believe it. But how do you handle it when you are on a team with people with issues and you have to work together?”
SC Response
Your “easy” questions are always the most difficult to answer. Context is always the critical issue. The problem you present is always easier to solve in theory than in practice. And by that I mean if you work with a toxic jerk, you are just better off avoiding the cancer until leadership is forced to address the situation.
But let’s assume the other person has some redeeming qualities. When that is the case, stay focused on the task at hand and work to find common ground. If you have to plan together, use Schmoker’s 30 minute planning agenda. It is a very scripted process that strips away most of the opportunities for chit-chat and griping. You go in, you work, and you get out.
If the issue is philosophical, stay focused on student performance and results. What is better, phonics or whole language? I don’t care as long as my kids can read.
If the issue is that the other person is jealous or lazy, just out work them. That person won’t be happy until you are slower or worse than they are. You and your students deserve better.
I hope I touched on your issue. If not, send me a follow up. How but you, LYS Nation? Any ideas?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Sunday Advice... More Gant Wisdom
I learned a lot from my grandfather. Some of the conversations that I had this week got me thinking about a plaque he kept on the wall. In formal and fancy script it read, “When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that your primary objective is to drain the swamp.”
The conversations this week (in multiple districts) generally centered on the immensity and complexity of the task. Even I was not immune, but I kept making sure that we always came back to the Alpha and Omega of our business, Teaching and Learning.
If what we do everyday isn’t primarily focused on improving the quality of instruction and increasing student performance, then we too are being distracted by the alligators.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Just a reminder for veteran LYS readers and an invitation to new LYS readers, Sunday is usually advice day. Send me your favorite piece of advice and why, along with your mailing address. If I post it, I’ll send you a world famous Lead Your School can koozie.
Your turn...
The conversations this week (in multiple districts) generally centered on the immensity and complexity of the task. Even I was not immune, but I kept making sure that we always came back to the Alpha and Omega of our business, Teaching and Learning.
If what we do everyday isn’t primarily focused on improving the quality of instruction and increasing student performance, then we too are being distracted by the alligators.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Just a reminder for veteran LYS readers and an invitation to new LYS readers, Sunday is usually advice day. Send me your favorite piece of advice and why, along with your mailing address. If I post it, I’ll send you a world famous Lead Your School can koozie.
Your turn...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)