The Glorious Sound of Gritching

Too many school leaders (from Principal to Board Member) have an unrealistic view of the human condition.  They mistakenly believe that the best indicator of effective and productive staff is the lack of complaints.  This would be wrong.

Today’s educational arena is in constant flux.  Standards change, accountability increases, the knowledge base expands, practices evolve, political policy devolves, funding constricts, etc.

To adapt, survive and thrive in this environment requires constant change, both incremental and large scale.  Change is difficult, uncomfortable, and scary.  Even the “freaks” who like change (of which I am one), like their change in certain areas of their life and then require near perfect consistency and conformity in other parts of their life.  It is what allows them to thrive in the high change environment.  For example, every day is a new challenge for me, there is next to no predictability and I love it. On the other hand, my backpack is packed “just so.” Everything I need to be productive during the day is exactly where I need it to be.  Even if they are trying to be helpful, if anyone else packed my backpack, I would be darn near dysfunctional for two days.  So my love of change is conditional.

When children face the difficult, uncomfortable and scary, they slow down, shut down and quit.  When adults face the difficult, uncomfortable and scary, they gripe and complain. “Gritching,” as my Mother described it. You know, “Griping” and..., well you can figure out the rest.

So this is where the unrealistic view of some leaders, especially those removed from the action and the messy endeavor of leading people in the field, comes into play.  These leaders mandate the “Change” and demand results. But when they hear the inevitable complaints they assume that the change is being mismanaged and they halt implementation.  That is a serious mistake. 

When we implement change, our staff are forced out of their comfort zone and routines.  If they were children they would quit.  Since they are adults, they “gritch.”  In fact, it is a truism that if you are attempting to implement change on your campus or in your district and there is no gritching, the change is not being implemented. Because...

Gritching is the lubricant that allows us to deal with the friction of change.

The sound of gritching is a glorious noise; it means the organization is moving in a new direction.  When you hear it, run towards it. Because that is a staff that is trying and needs your coaching, support and empathy, in other words... LEADERSHIP.  If you hear gritching and stop, that is poor management.  And if you are upstream in the chain of command (central office) and punish field leaders (principals) when you hear staff complaints, just know you are the primary reason why the organization is entrenched with the status quo.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

How Do I Verify What You See?

In a recent presentation, a school board member asked me an excellent question.  He asked, “You have all this classroom instruction data that LYS collects, but how do we verify that it is correct?”

The question illustrates the value of board members.  Board members attack the problems of schools from a different perspective and with a different experience base.  They are often the ones that force the system to think instead of react.  The question should be asked every time I present (we, LYS, ask it of every piece of data we use), but it isn’t.  Here is the answer.

Initially, a district really can’t verify our data.  There is no one on site who has the expertise or the necessary tools (not an indictment, just a function of opportunity and access).  The district could hire employees from other districts that LYS has trained.  But those people usually aren’t immediately available, and if you don’t yet believe LYS, why would you believe a LYSer?  However, when LYS works with a district, we train the staff to collect meaningful, objective data and we provide the district with access to LYS tools.  Verification isn’t immediate but it is forthcoming and it is provided by the district’s own employees. 

The goal of LYS is to create instructional systems that produce increasing student performance and are self-sustaining.  If we can’t train a district’s staff to replicate our observations and results, then we have failed.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite (Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: ESC 14 Sumer Conference (Keynote Presentation); ESC 11 Summer Conference (Keynote Presentation); NEASP National Conference; The Fundamental 5 National Summit (Keynote Presentation) 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Superintendent Writes... Chain of Command

A LYS Superintendent shares the following:

LYS Nation,

My understanding of Chain of Command has evolved as I have progressed through my career. And I have recently learned a very valuable lesson this year that I want to share.  

Entry-level and mid-level administrators often view following the chain of command as essential to maintaining control of the organization.  This certainly is one effect of following chain of command.  Of course subordinates often take a different view of chain of command, seeing it as stifling and an attempt to suppress points of view.  And indeed, in a poorly ran system with weak leadership, this can very well happen.  But I discovered a deeper benefit to following chain of command, one that I intend to teach to all my young administrators in the future.

I work in a district that has a long history of end-running the chain of command.  Teachers, parents, students, and anyone else with an agenda, go straight to the superintendent or a board member instead of dealing with principals.  This is a learned behavior in my district because this has been allowed for years and it has produced the desired results of the chain breaking actors.  At times, Board Members would intervene with the superintendent, other times the superintendent would get involved to prevent the board from getting unwarranted phone calls.  

The Legislature rightfully allows teachers to directly contact board members, and in very rare circumstances this is the most appropriate communication avenue (criminal conspiracy involving the superintendent, perhaps). But, in general I think this right has done more harm than good.  However, there is an easy fix.  Superintendents should insist that people follow the chain of command because of the organizational benefits it brings.

I realized that my district was lacking something between teachers and principals... trust.  Much of the lack of trust could be attributed to perceived past wrongdoings or hurt feelings.  In other cases, the teachers simply didn’t know the principal.  I decided to short circuit the end-running and insisted teachers follow the chain of command.  It took a lot of effort on my part because teachers were pounding board members.  Which predictably resulted in board members pounding me. Yet I held firm.  At the end of last year I could see some signs of trust building in the organization.

I learned that in the absence of relationship, or trust, or collegiality, in the organization forward progress grinds to a halt.  So I implemented a formal process for bringing the two sides together in a systematic way in order to solve problems.  I got what I was hoping for when I forced everyone to comply with chain of command.  

For example, I had a formal Level 1 grievance filed against the principal.  The end result was a situation that was resolved at Level 1 and each side had a better understanding of the situation.  The process took the place in a relationship and trust void, but by engaging in the process a small step towards building relationship and trust was taken.

So while it is tempting to allow end-runs of the chain of command, I really encourage you halt this practice.  By end-running the process you are denying the two sides the opportunity to work together in a systematic way to resolve problems and to start building trust.  As a superintendent or board member, if you circumventing the process, you are holding your organization back and you perpetuating a culture of mistrust and non-collegiality.  

The real benefit of following the chain of command is not controlling the organization... it is in building the organization.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite (Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: NASSP National Conference (Mutliple Presentations); TASSP State Conference (Multiple Presentations); NEASP National Conference; The Fundamental 5 National Summit (Multiple Presentations)  
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Reader Writes... (Teacher Stress - Part 20)

In response to the post, "A Reader Writes... (Teacher Stress - Part 18)," a reader writes.

"I have to respond....mainly because I don't think generalizations are helpful...and there were certainly a lot of generalizations made here. There are bad central administration staff...just like there are bad principals, assistant principals, and teachers. Must we continue to beat a dead horse by generalizing, stereotyping and focusing on the bad apples? This approach really seems to create an environment that does not produce collaboration and team work between the "players" that need to be making it happen for the kids.

None of us, in this business, are an island. Even good principals require a team to make them good principals. The success or failure of my campus depends on a strong team; on the campus and at the central office. Yes, we, as principals, can move our campus forward even with an ineffective central administration. But that is a tough fight. A central administration staff that is supportive and working toward campus success makes my job so much easier.

In this blog, we've criticized Assistant Principals (I couldn't survive without mine); teachers (that is where it all happens); counselors; and central administration staff. Not sure we've started in on food service and transportation...but they may be next.

Careful....we may choke on our principal haloes."

SC Response
Great post. Like I tell everyone, if you don’t like the tone of the blog, change it by sending in a comment.

First, if you talking specifically about, “Teacher Stress – Part 18,” you missed the context. I stated that I was describing a district that is in a doom loop. That obviously describes a narrow niche of school districts. It does not describe the majority of districts. On the other hand, having a working understanding of the dynamics of a doom loop district allows everyone else to do some self monitoring and self reflection. If you recognize some of the patterns or practices occurring in your district, fix it. If there ever was a case of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, this is it.

Second, yes there are poor performers in every role, from Board Member to Para-professional. And beating the dead horse gets tiresome. But this blog is driven by people who are trying to improve things because they want to, not because they have to. When that is the case, dealing with poor performers is a much more complex issue. It is much easier to improve the “have to” situation. Hence, the regular discussions.

Third, I know that the poor performers are in the minority, most educators are good people who try hard and want what’s best for their students. But we are also a profession that engages in very few professional behaviors. To not point that out and not work everyday to fix that situation would not be professional.

Fourth, effective teams are built on honest assessments and professional expectations. Dealing with that doesn’t always feel good. But this is where the role of leadership is most important, doing the hard stuff. One
reason why I often point out the frailties of upper management is because as the outsider, I can. The subordinate can’t point out to the boss that she is letting the team down, and survive. In that context, I see the blog as a vehicle that promotes reflection and examination of our practices through the lens of effective vs. ineffective. In this particular case, your post made me re-examine the recent content of this on-going conversation. After all, there is a fine line between constructive feedback and petty whining.

Finally, I’m the last one to claim that principal’s are perfect. In fact, I know of no one who holds principals more accountable than I do (other than Brown). Any principal that we have worked with can attest to that. Or as one principal stated, an LYS assessment is not meant to be a self esteem building exercise. But we do it, because we are zealots for public education and we believe that the work we (public educators) do is too important and too serious not do at full speed.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes (Sunday Advice from 2/7/10)

In response to the post, “A Reader Shares… Sunday Advice - 2/7/10,” a reader writes:

“I do not like to disagree with Don Brown, Sean Cain, or Bob Brezina but I am going to have to on this point.

The principal is NOT the only pure advocate for students on the campus and to make that flippant statement is ludicrous! I know several campus administrators and I am one of them, who are not the head principal but are very happy with where I am placed at the current time and we are powerful advocates for the students, sometimes MORE than the principal.

Not every assistant principal is striving for a seat in the big chair, and I absolutely do not put any other need before the students. I do not know where this philosophy was born, but is has become a common philosophy among the LYS staff and it really pisses me off! Counselors, nurses, special education teachers, and AP's can sometimes be the best advocates for students.

As far as I am concerned, many principals spend a little too much time at central office worried about their next promotion to central office. Head principals are sometimes the most out-of-touch people on the campus. So to say they are the only true advocate is idiotic and stupid.

Don't piss off this Marine, I will send rounds down range without aiming first. Friendly fire can be the deadliest.”

SC Response
Oh, the power of context. The pure (not only) advocate rule is short hand for a longer explanation, which is obviously warranted at this time. The rule is not meant to imply that individuals, regardless of position, are not motivated to ensure that student needs are met and can not set aside adult wants. This occurs all of the time. Instead the rule recognizes that certain roles can have role specific agendas that can be contrary to a student first agenda.

For example, teachers do all of the heavy lifting in education. They are where the rubber hits the road and student learning is directly correlated to their sweat equity. But it is human nature to want to reduce your work load and take labor saving short cuts. Saving labor and maximizing instructional effectiveness is often a mutually exclusive proposition.

Assistant principals, as a role, often serve as the “bad cop” on the campus. In this role, sacrificing the needs of a few students to facilitate order and effective school operations can be a logical course of action. As an aside, you were trained in a program specifically designed to protect students from this type of situation, so you know first hand the fights we had everyday with adults who did not share our philosophy.

Central Office personnel are generally focused on the “big” picture. Even with the purest of hearts, they make decisions that are best for the whole, even when they know that those decisions, by necessity, will be detrimental to some individuals.

Board members, as elected officials are naturally oriented toward political necessities, which by definition are the needs and wants of adults.

The principal, due to the fact that she is most directly accountable for the performance of her campus, is put in the position to be the best pure advocate for each individual student. The principal occupies the sweet spot where self-interest and community interest is best defined by student performance. Thus, Brown’s Rule.

Brown’s Rule is not meant to be insulting. It is meant to stimulate awareness and to serve as both a warning and a challenge to rise above ourselves and set aside our personal needs. This recognition of positional roles and the need to balance their destructive “passions” is not a new concept or dilemma. Brown’s rule simply recognizes at a school level what Adams, Hamilton, Madison et.al. identified and then built organizational structures to overcome at the nation building level.

Now to your comment, which fired me up. If you are going to disagree, do so at full speed! First, hopefully you can now see that the comment is not flippant. Plus, you know that Brown (and Brezina) is very deliberate in what he says. A skill that he has honed through decades of leadership at the campus, district, community, state and national levels.

Second, we all agree that individually, educators in all positions make numerous decisions each day the place the needs of students over their individual wants. Again, the rule illustrates that there are position based agendas that if not checked, can easily run counter to the needs of students.

Third, yes, there are ineffective, lazy, and just plain bad principals. And for as tough as some people think I am on teachers, I’m ten times as tough on leadership in general and principals in particular (again, as you have witnessed first hand). A bad teacher can sink a class, but a bad principal can sink an entire school.

So hold your fire Marine. There’s no need to frag the messenger. E. Don, is there anything that you want to add?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Anonymous Letters - Part 2)

In response to the post on Anonymous Letters, a reader writes:

“Of course Brezina is right. I had a similar problem in a district. The problem was that the anonymous letters went to board members as well as the superintendent. I knew what I wanted to do with the anonymous letters, so did the superintendent. However, the letters were unofficially given credibility by the board.

If the anonymous letters get the attention of the weak link in the leadership chain (which can be any level from the principal to the board), they can be swayed. If this happens, I fear there is little that administrators down stream can do about this. I hope the leadership above you stays strong, but based on your letter I wouldn’t count on it.”

SC Response
A significant part of the equation boils down to this:

We will run the district and campus based either on the input and insight of leaders and reflective educators who place the needs of students first; or we will run the district and campus based on the complaints of cowards who place their own needs above all others.

Then you have ask yourself one of two question sets.

1. Am I basing my decisions on the input of cowards? If so, what kind of leader does that make me?

Or,

2. Am I willing to work for the manager that makes his or her decisions based on the input of cowards instead of the needs of students?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Anonymous Letters - Part 1)

In response to the post on Anonymous Letters, a reader writes:

“The funny thing is this... There is always a ‘tipping point’ in the relationship between a staff and a new principal. The ‘tipping point’ signals the shift from the vocal minority complaining about change (or writing anonymously) to the silent majority finally being fed up with the constant negativity. The shift occurs for different reasons - an event, a problem, or just a matter of time. Complainers want to maintain the status quo because it's easier for them and gives them a feeling of power. The silent majority may be challenged by changes, but recognize when they are needed. When you are making decisions based on what is best for students, the silent majority eventually steps up.”

SC Response
What I have learned as a professional change agent is that you can not ignore the fundamental laws of nature. One of those laws is that movement requires friction. The belief that an organization can move without friction is a simply naïve. It also requires more effort to either start movement or reverse movement than to maintain movement. These are some of the reasons why those who have never faced the need to manage true change have no frame of reference of either the difficulty of the task or the skills requisite for job.

Because of this, in the initial stages of change, the superintendent and the principal have to show true leadership. Those above them (the Board for the Superintendent; central office staff for principal) often believe that complaints mean that change is being mismanaged (they are wrong). Those below them generally believe that they are already competent, so change is a waste of effort and resources (they too are wrong).

The leadership crucible is that one must generate enough positive results to sustain momentum before the naysayers create enough discontent to stop progress. You have to decide - will you create a better future for more students today; or will you continue to coddle adults who are actually getting paid to work. In other words, everyday you have to decide if you are a leader or a manager.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Brezina's Middle Ground Answer)

In response to Bob Brezina’s post on finding middle ground, a reader writes:

“One of my mentors has taught me that school focuses are, in this order:

1. Politics
2. Finance
3. Kids

Most schools have very little time or effort left for #3. My rough guess is that somewhere near 80% of what schools do has very little to do with kids and has much more to do with adults.”

SC Response:
I’ll start with a line from my June 25, 2009 post, “the belief that schools are about students is a myth. Schools are really about adult convenience.”

Like it our not, from the perspective of who holds power, the reader’s mentor is not far off. Boards and superintendents are worried more about politics and finance than students. That is the world they live in, the world they crave, and the world that they understand. That does not mean that they don’t care for students. It means that their decisions are made through the lens of political and financial considerations. It means that the big picture is more important that the small picture. This reality is what made Brezina darn near the perfect superintendent to work for and why Brezina and Brown are so philosophically in tune.

Brezina as Superintendent: Brezina was a no-nonsense, intimidating, imposing, hard case. Rules of surviving to work again tomorrow were: Don’t spend a dime when a nickel will do. Don’t just spend a nickel, if you need to spend 7 cents to be successful. Don’t talk to the Board without letting Mr. Brezina know (they are not your Board, they are Brezina's Board). “Yes,” means start running at full speed right now. “No,” means stop now. But most importantly, if you were a principal, your instructions were,

“If it is right for students, come up with the effective and efficient solution, and implement it. If it is wrong for students, quit doing it. Don’t worry about the politics and lawyers, that is my job.”

So yes, Brezina focused on politics and finance. That was his job. But he also used his power, influence, and reputation to protect and provide for his staff who’s job it was to focus on the students.

That is the system I was “raised” in. Then I meet E. Don Brown who lives by the creed,

“The campus principal is the only pure advocate for students.”

This was a concept that I had never articulated or consciously considered, but one that I instantly understood, because that concept encapsulated my formative professional experience.

So the idea is not to be naive about the ways of the world or holier than thou. The world is about money, power, and adult convenience. The idea is to recognize that when we are in the position of pure student advocacy, we have a moral obligation to engage. If we don’t, who will? We also have to recognize that when the student advocate calls our hand, we have a moral obligation to check ourselves.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes...

In response to the post, Board Members on Campus, a reader writes,

"I have a Board Member who also serves as a mentor for one of our 5th grade students. He is at our school at least once every two weeks. I know that he has much more information to make quality decisions about our school than other board members who do not know my school on such an intimate basis. The Board members see our strengths and our areas for improvement and I believe he is a much better advocate for our kids because of this."

Great comment. Your turn...

Board Members on Campus

This past weekend I, along with a Superintendent and an Assistant Superintendent that I have worked with for a number of years, presented at a multi-state school board conference. In our session (a full house with over 75 attendees) we had school board members from Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. Our discussion centered on the role of leadership in bridging both cultural and learning gaps. We were very well received and the audience was lively, engaged and motivated by the subject at hand. I bring this up, because in the middle of the discussion a question was asked about school board members visiting schools and it presented a perfect compare and contrast between traditional school leadership views and the way that we believe.

The question was poised, “should school board members visit schools” and the room immediately became a den of noise. Quickly, an older gentleman spoke up and made his case:

He was a former superintendent and now he worked for a regional service center. He did not think that any good could come from board members visiting schools. They would not know what to look for and would not recognize it if they saw it. Board members need to let the professionals do their jobs.

Anybody who knows me and the type of people that I work with can guess that we had some areas of disagreement.

Here was our case:

1. School board members have a responsibility to visit schools on a regular basis. First there are the twin issues of transparency and trust. As professionals, we need to operate safe, effective and efficient operations 24/7 and the board needs to trust that we do that. Open access and regular inspections insure that both occur. Second, the schools belong to the community and their agent is the board. The board can’t fulfill it’s responsibility as a steward by acting like an absentee landowner.

2. The Board is the Senior Leadership of the district. Regular visits by senior leadership is good for staff morale and the visits also serve to bring insight and perspective to the Board’s decision making. For example, a covered walk-way is easier to approve once you have witnessed 400 elementary students get off the bus in the freezing rain. Just as it is easier to question if central office really needs 50 new flat screen monitors when you have recently visited the high school computer lab that hasn’t had any new equipment in the past 10 years.

3. There are some caveats. First the board member is there to observe only. Comments and questions must be routed through the Superintendent. Because of their position, board member comments carry too much weight and too many repercussions to be unfiltered. Second, the board member must understand that anyone with enough moxie to approach them is not just concerned or being friendly. They have a specific agenda they are advocating. Third, the board member is not there to manage anything, take credit or blame for anything and/or campaign for anything. If a board member does this, the other board members must step up and rein that person in.

So there it is in a nut shell, old school thinking vs. Lead Your School thinking.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your Turn…