Culture of collaboration . . .



 Earlier this week I had the opportunity to meet with leadership from TEA and PSE, the organizations that represent our teachers and our classified staff. During both meetings, the importance of being open to influence and being aware of one’s mental models and ladders of inference was reinforced for me. At points of time in both meetings, the content of agenda items could have led to polarization and traditional positional responses with the real discussion done in the parking lot after the meeting. For me, it meant I needed to suspend assumptions so that I could continue to hear and consider the expressed needs before jumping to conclusions. I believe that others in the room were doing the same thing.


Why are we able to do what many others seek to reach, but struggle to accomplish? I believe that there are many contributing factors such as our work with building common purpose, our commitment to collaboration, our behavior that manifests in contract language that demonstrates respect, and our openness to the concerns of members in both organizations. I also believe that our leadership training and focus on collaboration and effective communication have laid a foundation for the capacity to engage in skillful conversation.

One of the skills that we teach is what the literature calls left/right and we call public/private. It identifies the importance of saying in the meeting (public) what you would say to your best friend in the parking lot (private) so that you can influence decisions that are made and have those decisions be more likely to deal with the root of the problem and sustain over time. Most of the time, which is more than I observe in some other meeting contexts, this is what happens. I believe that it is the norm for these monthly meetings.

Of course, the people engaged in the conversations also have a great deal of influence on the culture. I have been fortunate to work with two HR people, Mary and Bruce, who have been able to support these conversations and maintain a collaborative culture over time and I’m confident that Mark will continue with this success. I have also been blessed over time with association leaders who are first advocates for their membership, but who also have the capacity to see a bigger picture and value collaboration as a problem solving tool. Believe me when I say that there are many times when I give thanks for people like Steve, Amy, and John for TEA and Barb, Connie Jo, and Karen from PSE. We have the capacity to disagree and problem solve with commitment to our various constituencies and laughter to energize us as we struggle with difficult issues.

Though it will be hard for some to believe, I look forward to these meetings and for the opportunity they give to live our belief in the importance that we each bring to the work of educating our young people. I am very thankful to be able to do this with quality people committed to success and willing to think and act systemically.

We can help . . .

An editorial in today's Seattle Times encourages people to visit one of the county's 318 Starbucks stores.  Why?  Not necessarily for their caffeine fix, though I'm sure that Starbucks would appreciate it.  They are asking readers to visit DonorsChoose.com, an online charity for classrooms.  Through support of the Gates Foundation, $10 vouchers are available at Starbucks stores to be used to support teacher requests.  It is a national organization doing good work so that teachers do not have to use their own money for classroom projects. 

About 1,000 teachers in King County have posted project wish lists on the website. Founded in 2000, the nonprofit website connects public-school teachers in need of resources with donors. Around 118,000 public-school teachers have received funding for $46 million worth of books, art supplies, technology and other resources to help learning.

Interested donors purchase the vouchers, go to the website and then choose the teacher request that they want to support.  In these difficult economic times with budget cuts we need to find additional ways to support teachers and this is one of those opportunities.  Thanks to the Times for sharing this resource and for encouraging us to support our teachers through this action.

Federal education role . . .

http://hpronline.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/education_full.jpg

The growing role of the federal government in education and the views of G.O.P. candidate's  is the focus of this analysis piece in today's New York Times.  It is certainly something that we must consider as we get closer to the presidential and congressional elections.  If the republican candidate were to be elected president and both the House and Senate were controlled by conservative republicans, we could see a very different Education Department emerge.  Although many would welcome this, the landscape would change and if Michele Bachmann got her way it would be dramatic.

“Over a three-year period,” she explained in August at a rally in South Carolina, “I’d take the money we send to schools and write to superintendents, ‘No more requirements you have to deal with, but over three years you won’t have any money.’ ”

I don't expect to see this extreme change in the time frame she identifies, but thinking about it raises concerns.  It would mean the loss of federal Title 1 money based on free and reduced lunch counts and federal support for special needs students.  These are the cornerstones on which the department was built, extra support for economically and disabled students.  Only later with NCLB in the Bush administration and then with RttT in the Obama administration did assessments, reporting, and incentives become a part of the work.  For many of the candidates, these additional requirements and the influence of the Tea Party are resulting in the anti-federal push.

Though the anti-federal role position resonates with many and is supportive of education being the responsibility of the state, I don't believe that it will result in elimination of the department even with changes in leadership.  I agree with Hess when he says:

“You can imagine,” said Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, “the Republican candidate is saying, ‘Not only do I want to end the Education Department as a bureaucratic monster, but I want to defund programs for needy kids or special-needs kids,’ or ‘I want to let states spend those dollars on other kids.’ That’s a very difficult debate for the Republican candidate.”

Those that advocate for a continued federal role and some form of accountability like NCLB argue that absent this accountability the gains made in education of disadvantaged groups will be lost.

The question is whether states and local districts, without Washington’s various carrots and sticks, will continue to raise academic standards and give equal opportunity to traditionally ignored student populations.

I know how I answer this question and believe that it would be the stance of all in our school system.  We are not continuing to look for ways to support the achievement of all of our young people to qualify for federal dollars or to seek federal grants.  We do it because it is our purpose for being and because we want success for all of those we have the responsibility to support.  QUALITY LEARNING EVERYDAY IN EVERY CLASSROOM FOR EVERY CHILD, is not a saying, it is a belief that drives behavior.

Homecoming football plus . . .

Last evening was the homecoming football game at THS and the Bears put on quite an offensive show.  They scored on the first play from scrimmage and didn't stop, putting up 55 points in a win over the Royals from Kent Meridian.  These kids can score on the ground and in the air and have been doing it all year. It was a fun game and a great way to celebrate homecoming.

As good as the game was, I was even more impressed by the post game show featuring our performance band.  Mr. Cole and his staff have the kids looking and sounding great.  During the game, the pep band kept the stadium rocking and the percussion section is exceptional.  It was a nice way to cap off an enjoyable evening.

Big $ at risk . . .

This League of Education blog post does a nice job of sharing what levy equalization is and how it will become a primary focus for the legislators as they grapple with a $2 billion revenue shortfall. This gap could also increase as we were recently told by a key legislator that the November revenue forecast will be even further below projections. In any case, levy equalization is on the table because it is the last of the big dollar items not covered under basic education.


Below is an explanation from the post of what levy equalization does.

The amount a local school district can raise via a local school levy is set as a fixed portion of a school’s operating budget. Currently law allows all districts to collect at least 28% (raised from 24%), with some grandfathered in at higher rates. Local levies are based on property taxes, and thus property values. With the great disparity between property values in different communities, the state established a way to alleviate the fact that well-to-do districts can raise more local money. This program helps school districts with lower property values offer the same level of education as higher-value districts. It is called Local Effort Assistance, or Levy Equalization, and the acronym LEA was born.


There is an equity problem that LEA tries to address. If there was no levy equalization in 2010, a $100,000 home in Republic would have paid over twice the taxes of a $1,000,000 home in Redmond for a 28 percent levy. Why should far poorer taxpayers in a $100,000 house have to pay twice the taxes of a $1,000,000 Bellevue home to get the same local levy for their schools?

I think this brief explanation does a nice job of sharing why levy equalization is so important. It is especially so for small districts that would find it very difficult to pass levies at the percentages that are common in our area. We are one of those that are at the 28% level and we also qualify for levy equalization, projected to be about $930,000 in revenue this year.

Levy equalization has survived the budget cuts of the last few years because of support from republican legislators representing those districts receiving levy equalization and democrats supporting the need. There are 240 districts out of 295 currently receiving revenue so there has been broad support for it in the legislature. There are problems, however, with LEA because the formula creates disincentives for some to raise local dollars and an argument can be made that 240 districts don't need the support. Even with these problems it has survived.  But, given today's budget crisis something has to go and this looks like one large pot at risk. The loss of another $900,000 to us would create problems not easily resolved and even bigger problems for some districts suffering significant budget issues.   If cut, it could lead to some smaller districts being forced to consolidate.

Thank you Superintendent Dorn . . .

In case you didn't get a chance to read today's Seattle Times, here is the editorial supporting Superintendent Dorn's refusal to identify for the Governor an additional 10% in cuts to public education.  To deal with the revenue shortfall she had asked all heads of state agencies to identify an additional 10% for possible cuts.  Superintendent Dorn has refused to comply with the request.

"I have directed staff not to submit a list of options to you that would cut the State's payments for basic education by $97.3 million as requested," Dorn said in a written response to Gov. Chris Gregoire's budget directive to state agencies.

Thank you Superintendent Dorn for taking this stance.  I doubt that it will have any influence on the decisions that need to be made, but at least he is advocating for all students in the state.  The bottom line is that cuts will be a reality and it is likely that we will also feel the pain.  Will it be 10%?  I don't think so because of previous cuts, the lawsuit now before the State Supreme Court, and the constitutional requirements that we are all familiar with. 

Is the Superintendent playing politics as some suggest in the comments to the editorial?  I choose to view his position as advocacy for public education and not playing political games.  It is an attempt to balance the high demand placed on all public schools with the support necessary to achieve NCLB benchmarks and the need to prepare students for success in post high school learning and work.  Additional cuts will eliminate even more of the support structures that many do not understand are essential components of learning communities focused on student achievement and adaptive change.  Reading the comments to the editorial reinforces for me the lack of understanding that many have for the complexity of our work.  Some examples are shared below.

**Our education system needs restructuring. We need to return to the curriculum of the 1960s when the SAT scores were much higher.


The reason our test scores are moving lower and lower each year is because we have changed the curriculum from one of teaching the basics to one that is so broad based little is learned because there is not enough emphasis on the three Rs and science.


**Dorn is the boss and paid to lead, not obstruct. There are places to cut and ways to save. It may mean kids with laptops learning from home and reducing classes to a couple of days a week.



Less money, it means the same to a state superintendent as it does to your household finances. Crying to the world and ignoring the problem will not resolve the issues, except who will be replacing Dorn next election.
 
Almost all of the 24 comments are against the Times for supporting Dorn's stance.  You can find them here.  On this one I say thanks, though it probably won't influence the outcome it is good for our Superintendent to say enough is enough.

Two leadership books . . .

Many in our system know that I enjoy reading and studying about leadership and sometimes ask me to share some of the books that I read.  Two books that I have read within the last year that are influencing my thinking and my work are Change the Culture Change the Game by Collins and Smith and Clear Leadership by Bushe.  If these books had been available earlier in my career I am sure that they would have influenced the direction and pace of my work and that of our system.

I am particularly interested in what Bushe calls the "interpersonal mush" that forms when we make up stories about our experiences and about others.  This "mush" is the result of forming ladders with little or inaccurate data and gets in the way of skillful conversations and quality solutions to difficult issues.  One of the strategies that he identifies is using the Experience Cube.  In simple terms, he suggests that we need to ensure that people know what we are observing, thinking, feeling, and wanting to preclude mush from being formed.  In the absence of us sharing this about ourselves others will make up stories that may or may not be true, but will in either case guide their actions toward us.  Of course, we do the same thing about others when they do not share the information.  Though it is much more complex than this, the book provides us with guidance on how to move our journey forward while creating and maintaining communities of learning.

I would recommend these books if you are interested in leadership and increasing your capacity to support and influence your colleagues.  Of the two, Change the Culture Change the Game is a more difficult read but very supportive of understanding what to focus on in creating cultural change that will sustain over time.