Posts
In response to the post, "A Reader Writes... (Dress Code Yet Again - Part 2)..." a hard core LYS’er writes:
Quote - "I didn't go to college to..."
That is such a copout statement! And by the way, what college did you go to? Because you need to get your money back. It seems that they didn’t do a good job of teaching you the essence of teaching, learning and purposeful reflection.
As a product of the Marines, the University of Wyoming, and UNLV, I was taught, directed, and coached to not only to instruct students, but to model a standard every single day, as well.
Grow up. Even Wal-Mart has a dress code. And do know that if you were on my campus and you continued to display the attitude that came across in your post, there’s a good chance that Wal-Mart would quickly become your only employment option. Either check yourself, or make sure that you check my receipt when I leave the store.
Semper Fi.
SC Response
Ouch. Ease up just a little bit. There was a time when both you and I felt the need to fight the suits.
But as you so often do, you quickly get to the crux of the matter. Modeling is the most powerful way to teach anything. As teachers, coaches, and mentors every time we justify to ourselves that we deserve better than what we expect from our charges, we sacrifice effectiveness for comfort and conveinience. That doesn’t mean that you are a bad person, but it does mean that your pursuit of excellence is just lip service.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
A Reader Submits... School Dysfunction
A LYS Principal submits:
I have noted the characteristics of two types of dysfunctional schools. There are probably more types, but these are the two I have experience with. It is interesting that campuses from opposite sides of the state can have nothing in common, except their dysfunction.
The Bad School
The faculty does not hate the kids. Due to leadership issues, adults are not doing their work. The school has limped by for years until finally accountability has caught up with lazy practice. The faculty has choices in employment. There are nearby districts with available jobs, most of which pay more than they are currently making.
These schools are relatively easy to fix. Getting to people to teach will quickly fix most of the problems. Getting to “recognized” only requires a bit more effort and system discipline (Cain’s Foundation Trinity). With focused leadership and a few bumps along the way, things improve. As long as the superintendent stays committed, this type of school should be back to the business serving all students within six to eighteen months.
The Nightmare School
The faculty hates a significant population of the kids. They find reasons not to teach “those” kids. Leadership allows this. As a whole, the faculty agrees that the hated group can’t be or shouldn’t be taught. Quite possibly, there are a number of teachers here that understand their craft, so training is not the issue. They know what to do, or at least they have been exposed to best practices. But they purposefully reject basic professionalism and best practice.
They hate the kids and are miserable people, but they don’t move on because they only have X# more years to go until retirement. So they stay on. The faculty defends each other and this system through community misinformation, poisonous attitudes towards administration, and/or a union. In nightmare schools, identify this source of protection as soon as possible. For the school to descend to these depths requires a type of formal or informal faculty protection that prior leadership perceived as formidable.
Unfortunately for leadership there are only two options here: make change and fight through the protection using the direct action approach. OR leadership can try to erode the protection and then gradually make change. The problem with the erosion option is that very few leaders stick around or survive long enough for the erosion approach to work. With a two year contract and a strong superintendent, the direct action approach is what is best for kids. Traditional leadership approaches have little to no chance of being effective. The nightmare school is a special warfare scenario.
Just some observations from the trenches.
SC Response
You made a couple of key observations that I want to highlight before my response. First you qualified your post by pointing out you are describing dysfunctional schools. That is critical. “Dysfunctional” does not always mean low performing. There are functional schools that sometimes have temporary setbacks and there are seemingly successful schools that fall into your dysfunctional nightmare category.
Second, from a broad standpoint, I think you are on the right track. If you held up a specific example school, I believe you would find more similarities than differences. So your categories and descriptions are a great starting point for a conversation.
I recently did clinical assessments / evaluations on two struggling schools in the same district. One you would categorize as Bad, one Nightmare. My task, quickly diagnose the situation and develop a rapid improvement prescription. Just a typical day’s work.
What is interesting is that 80% of the improvement prescription was the same for both campuses. This is similar to doctors who have the same advice for almost every aliment, “eat less, exercise more, and quit drinking and smoking.”
The deviation in my prescriptions was in the realm of staff management. The short version was this, at the “Nightmare” school every employee (from the feeder pattern Assistant Superintendent to the classroom teacher) is put on notice. The execution of best practice in every class, with every student is no longer a matter of personal choice. The situation will improve rapidly, or vacancies will be created. Anyone who transfers to a new campus in the district does so on a growth plan. A team loss is a team loss.
And as you point out, if the Superintendent blinks, the nightmare will continue.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
I have noted the characteristics of two types of dysfunctional schools. There are probably more types, but these are the two I have experience with. It is interesting that campuses from opposite sides of the state can have nothing in common, except their dysfunction.
The Bad School
The faculty does not hate the kids. Due to leadership issues, adults are not doing their work. The school has limped by for years until finally accountability has caught up with lazy practice. The faculty has choices in employment. There are nearby districts with available jobs, most of which pay more than they are currently making.
These schools are relatively easy to fix. Getting to people to teach will quickly fix most of the problems. Getting to “recognized” only requires a bit more effort and system discipline (Cain’s Foundation Trinity). With focused leadership and a few bumps along the way, things improve. As long as the superintendent stays committed, this type of school should be back to the business serving all students within six to eighteen months.
The Nightmare School
The faculty hates a significant population of the kids. They find reasons not to teach “those” kids. Leadership allows this. As a whole, the faculty agrees that the hated group can’t be or shouldn’t be taught. Quite possibly, there are a number of teachers here that understand their craft, so training is not the issue. They know what to do, or at least they have been exposed to best practices. But they purposefully reject basic professionalism and best practice.
They hate the kids and are miserable people, but they don’t move on because they only have X# more years to go until retirement. So they stay on. The faculty defends each other and this system through community misinformation, poisonous attitudes towards administration, and/or a union. In nightmare schools, identify this source of protection as soon as possible. For the school to descend to these depths requires a type of formal or informal faculty protection that prior leadership perceived as formidable.
Unfortunately for leadership there are only two options here: make change and fight through the protection using the direct action approach. OR leadership can try to erode the protection and then gradually make change. The problem with the erosion option is that very few leaders stick around or survive long enough for the erosion approach to work. With a two year contract and a strong superintendent, the direct action approach is what is best for kids. Traditional leadership approaches have little to no chance of being effective. The nightmare school is a special warfare scenario.
Just some observations from the trenches.
SC Response
You made a couple of key observations that I want to highlight before my response. First you qualified your post by pointing out you are describing dysfunctional schools. That is critical. “Dysfunctional” does not always mean low performing. There are functional schools that sometimes have temporary setbacks and there are seemingly successful schools that fall into your dysfunctional nightmare category.
Second, from a broad standpoint, I think you are on the right track. If you held up a specific example school, I believe you would find more similarities than differences. So your categories and descriptions are a great starting point for a conversation.
I recently did clinical assessments / evaluations on two struggling schools in the same district. One you would categorize as Bad, one Nightmare. My task, quickly diagnose the situation and develop a rapid improvement prescription. Just a typical day’s work.
What is interesting is that 80% of the improvement prescription was the same for both campuses. This is similar to doctors who have the same advice for almost every aliment, “eat less, exercise more, and quit drinking and smoking.”
The deviation in my prescriptions was in the realm of staff management. The short version was this, at the “Nightmare” school every employee (from the feeder pattern Assistant Superintendent to the classroom teacher) is put on notice. The execution of best practice in every class, with every student is no longer a matter of personal choice. The situation will improve rapidly, or vacancies will be created. Anyone who transfers to a new campus in the district does so on a growth plan. A team loss is a team loss.
And as you point out, if the Superintendent blinks, the nightmare will continue.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Reader's Write... (You Can Do It, Quick)
I’m moving these comments to the front of the line, because evidently I offended some readers. So here's the first comment:
“Sean,
I understand the need for success stories however this is not one of them. You may end up with egg on your face if this blog continues to be available. Your second sentence in the first paragraph says it all, "We both know that they did all the heavy lifting and hard work." After reading your response, LYS has lost all credibility."
SC Response
I re-read my comment. First, I agree that it is a bitter sweet post. A campus that has made tremendous gains is losing an effective leader. That is tough and in a perfect world, that wouldn’t happen. But it does and as my father-in-law, constantly reminds me, “No one is irreplaceable. The work doesn’t go away and someone else will step up and do it.”
Second, here are the points that I was trying to make:
1. The success of the campus ultimately rests on teaching and learning, that is teachers and students. All the training, motivation, programs and management techniques in the world mean nothing if teachers don’t connect with kids and kids don’t respond to teachers.
2. This principal was the catalyst for change. But it was his staff and students that produced.
3. That the changes that led to improved adult practice and student results were not easy, but this principal stayed the course and his teachers and students rose to the challenge and exceeded everyone’s initial expectations.
4. I, and LYS, advise, problem solve and coach, but we can not and will not take the credit for the fruits of someone else’s labor.
If I was unclear on this I blame poor writing, which is my fault. If I was clear, then I can live with losing some credibility. But, and I mean this with all sincerity, thank you for calling me on the carpet. This is a forum of ideas and beliefs. As such, they need to be challenged.
The next three comments were a similar. One was excited because the person believed I was talking about her campus. One wanted to clarify some facts that I misstated. And one said that I completely misrepresented what situation in that person’s district. So here goes:
First reader, from your e-mail address, I wasn’t talking about your district.
Second reader, from your e-mail address, not only was I not talking about your campus, I didn’t know your principal was leaving.
Third reader, your comment came in as "anonymous," so I don’t know what district you are in, so I can't respond.
But, this brings me to a blog rule. If I state a campus or district name, you know exactly who I am talking about. I only use names when the information can’t be used to hurt a person, campus or district. If the story or information could be hurtful to a person, campus or district, I mask the information. I do that to maintain a level of confidentiality and because the purpose of this blog is to build and support, not tear down.
But again, thank you for questioning me. If I misstate, misquote or just flat out miss it, I want to correct it. We are all accountable.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
“Sean,
I understand the need for success stories however this is not one of them. You may end up with egg on your face if this blog continues to be available. Your second sentence in the first paragraph says it all, "We both know that they did all the heavy lifting and hard work." After reading your response, LYS has lost all credibility."
SC Response
I re-read my comment. First, I agree that it is a bitter sweet post. A campus that has made tremendous gains is losing an effective leader. That is tough and in a perfect world, that wouldn’t happen. But it does and as my father-in-law, constantly reminds me, “No one is irreplaceable. The work doesn’t go away and someone else will step up and do it.”
Second, here are the points that I was trying to make:
1. The success of the campus ultimately rests on teaching and learning, that is teachers and students. All the training, motivation, programs and management techniques in the world mean nothing if teachers don’t connect with kids and kids don’t respond to teachers.
2. This principal was the catalyst for change. But it was his staff and students that produced.
3. That the changes that led to improved adult practice and student results were not easy, but this principal stayed the course and his teachers and students rose to the challenge and exceeded everyone’s initial expectations.
4. I, and LYS, advise, problem solve and coach, but we can not and will not take the credit for the fruits of someone else’s labor.
If I was unclear on this I blame poor writing, which is my fault. If I was clear, then I can live with losing some credibility. But, and I mean this with all sincerity, thank you for calling me on the carpet. This is a forum of ideas and beliefs. As such, they need to be challenged.
The next three comments were a similar. One was excited because the person believed I was talking about her campus. One wanted to clarify some facts that I misstated. And one said that I completely misrepresented what situation in that person’s district. So here goes:
First reader, from your e-mail address, I wasn’t talking about your district.
Second reader, from your e-mail address, not only was I not talking about your campus, I didn’t know your principal was leaving.
Third reader, your comment came in as "anonymous," so I don’t know what district you are in, so I can't respond.
But, this brings me to a blog rule. If I state a campus or district name, you know exactly who I am talking about. I only use names when the information can’t be used to hurt a person, campus or district. If the story or information could be hurtful to a person, campus or district, I mask the information. I do that to maintain a level of confidentiality and because the purpose of this blog is to build and support, not tear down.
But again, thank you for questioning me. If I misstate, misquote or just flat out miss it, I want to correct it. We are all accountable.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Monday, June 7, 2010
Come Out and Say Hi
It is conference time in Texas and as always, LYS is an active participant. This week alone, we will have a booth at the Texas Association of Secondary School Principals convention. Along with the booth, I will present twice on Wednesday, E. Don Brown will host the TASSP / LYS breakfast on Thursday morning, all attendees are invited. On Friday afternoon we will train conference attendees on the PowerWalks system. Again, this is open to all conference participants. Some groups talk about supporting schools, we just step up and do it.
Thursday, I will present twice at the Texas Association of School Boards Summer Leadership Conference. As of now there are over 500 board members pre-registered for the sessions. Board members love hearing about the LYS nation.
Then on Friday morning I will present at the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association conference.
So if you are in the area, stop by and say “hi.” And if you are at any of these conventions, get to the meeting room early, because the LYS presentations are always standing room only.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Thursday, I will present twice at the Texas Association of School Boards Summer Leadership Conference. As of now there are over 500 board members pre-registered for the sessions. Board members love hearing about the LYS nation.
Then on Friday morning I will present at the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association conference.
So if you are in the area, stop by and say “hi.” And if you are at any of these conventions, get to the meeting room early, because the LYS presentations are always standing room only.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
A Reader Shares... You Can Do It, Quick
A LYS Principal shares:
"Sean,
I want to share our story with all the new LYS’ers and readers. Like you and the other early LYS Principals, I’m known for jump starting campuses, any campus. When was hired in my current district a little over two years ago my school was low performing. The year before that it was “saved” only because it wasn’t rated due to all of the hurricane closure days.
The week I arrived, I met with my new staff and laid out the plan (the LYS plan that E. Don taught me) that would take us from a low performing to Exemplary campus. Year one, we just missed recognized (I was hired in the middle of the year). Year two, we were solid recognized (again, those darn hurricanes). And now we are Exemplary with a 91% in ELA, 90% in math, 92% in Science and 98% in Social Studies (haven’t used TPM yet, not even sure that I would if I could).
I started out as a LYS Assistant Principal and I took that training and philosophy with me when I became a principal. But even then there was only so much that I could do by myself, so this past year, I had Cain come in and work with the teachers. He and the Fundamental Five pushed us over the top. It’s not easy, but it feels good to stand on the top of the mountain every once in a while."
SC Response
First, congratulations to your students and your staff. We both know that they did all the heavy lifting and hard work.
Now for the rest of the story. This is a Title One school. The schools in the feeder pattern are not exemplary, in fact before this principal arrived, the district did not have any recognized campuses for over three years. Year one, the district and staff fought him. Year two, the district fought him. This year the superintendent openly questioned his loyalty to him. Three days ago a bigger district with a bigger school hired him for a big raise. Now his old district doesn’t understand why after three years of abuse, he is leaving.
The lesson here is to focus on putting your teachers and students in a position to do great things (even when initially they don’t want to) and let the chips fall where they may. If your school is better today than it was yesterday, you have done your job.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
"Sean,
I want to share our story with all the new LYS’ers and readers. Like you and the other early LYS Principals, I’m known for jump starting campuses, any campus. When was hired in my current district a little over two years ago my school was low performing. The year before that it was “saved” only because it wasn’t rated due to all of the hurricane closure days.
The week I arrived, I met with my new staff and laid out the plan (the LYS plan that E. Don taught me) that would take us from a low performing to Exemplary campus. Year one, we just missed recognized (I was hired in the middle of the year). Year two, we were solid recognized (again, those darn hurricanes). And now we are Exemplary with a 91% in ELA, 90% in math, 92% in Science and 98% in Social Studies (haven’t used TPM yet, not even sure that I would if I could).
I started out as a LYS Assistant Principal and I took that training and philosophy with me when I became a principal. But even then there was only so much that I could do by myself, so this past year, I had Cain come in and work with the teachers. He and the Fundamental Five pushed us over the top. It’s not easy, but it feels good to stand on the top of the mountain every once in a while."
SC Response
First, congratulations to your students and your staff. We both know that they did all the heavy lifting and hard work.
Now for the rest of the story. This is a Title One school. The schools in the feeder pattern are not exemplary, in fact before this principal arrived, the district did not have any recognized campuses for over three years. Year one, the district and staff fought him. Year two, the district fought him. This year the superintendent openly questioned his loyalty to him. Three days ago a bigger district with a bigger school hired him for a big raise. Now his old district doesn’t understand why after three years of abuse, he is leaving.
The lesson here is to focus on putting your teachers and students in a position to do great things (even when initially they don’t want to) and let the chips fall where they may. If your school is better today than it was yesterday, you have done your job.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)