“Why or Why Not … a matter of vision”

"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not."

George Bernard Shaw

Though definitions vary, it is generally accepted that strategic planning is a management tool for organizing the present on the basis of the projections of the desired future. But it is much more.

Simply doing better what you are currently doing is not necessarily the path to breakthrough results. Especially if your organization or in our case a school system, has not operated at a high level, consistently and constantly meeting the needs of each learner.

Strategic planning therefore must fundamentally be strategic.

Two glaring shortcomings hinder strategic planning. The first teeters on the obvious. We must think strategically to plan strategically.

Thinking strategically is what Shaw, in part was conveying. Dreaming, visioning, and seeing require different lenses. Thinking strategically requires balancing addressing improvement in the immediate, current or existing programs, practices, and procedures while simultaneously filtering these actions through a forward-looking, transformational if you will, picture of the work completed.

“Planning can be considered strategic only if it sees a new reality and does whatever it can to push the existing system toward that reality or to begin working outside the existing system” (Cook, 2004 p. 73).

The second obstacle to strategic planning is the absence of a detailed implementation plan – the detailed tactical plan that lists precisely the responsibilities of everyone involved in implementing each particular strategy.

There it is – the absence of a clear picture of the future and the necessary detailed implementation plan are the reasons that our plan, strategies, action steps, programs, processes, or practices have not yielded the desired or intended outcome.

To address these obstacles we are resetting our planning processes with the integration of Hoshin planning.

The basic premise behind the Hoshin plan is that the best way to obtain the desired result is to ensure that all in the organization understand the long-range direction, our Strategic Commitments, and that each member of our organization is working according to a linked plan to make the vision of “all means all” a reality.

The second aspect of Hoshin planning is that there are fundamental process measures that must be monitored to assure the continuous improvement of our organization's key processes.

The Strategic Commitments are forward-looking, visionary and achievable. They are purposeful in describing our core work. In a like manner, they specifically describe the key success factors for each commitment to be accomplished. The key success factors drive the work at all levels. Unfortunately, we have not demonstrated the alignment of department, school, and classroom improvement efforts according to the commitments. Hoshin planning will ensure this alignment is achieved. It will also ensure greater awareness, understanding, and implementation vertically and horizontally in our system.

Planning strategically therefore requires vision – a vision that encompasses seeing not only the work completed but also each and everyone one of us in making “all means all” a reality.

Who said our students cannot be successful? Cannot achieve to high standards?

Rather than “why” shouldn’t our focus, our intentions, our commitments, our convictions be “why not”?

“Why not” is a mindset – the mindset that must overcome any obstacles preventing thinking strategically and implementation.

Hoshin planning is not mystical or magical. It is hard work. Different work.

Isn’t that what strategic planning is suppose to be?

"If ..."

I will never forget a conversation in or around the spring of 1985. My wife and I were having dinner with the former president of Washington State University, Dr. Glen Terrell.

As we were discussing myriad topics he paused and asked, “Who will be the leaders of your generation?” I am quite confident that I had a “deer in the headlight” expression. How do you answer that question?

Sensing that I was in completely uncharted waters, Dr. Terrell broke the silence by sharing that leadership, effective leadership doesn’t just happen by chance. It is planned, thoughtful, deliberate, and with purpose.

He continued by explaining that thinking about leadership now and in the future is accepting that individual giftedness, skills, knowledge, experience and passion all combine or converge not as happenstance. Rather, the path of leadership is constant and consistent learning, humility, risk, perseverance, making sense, meaning making, and unwavering commitment to improvement of self as well as others.

At the time, I recall nodding my head in agreement knowing full well that I had little to anchor or reference with respect to experience to these pearls of wisdom.

The conversation concluded with three questions that serve both as a reminder and motivator to the oft-daunting task of leading others. Dr. Terrell queried again in a rhetorical tone “Who will be the leaders of your generation?”

· “If not you, who?”

· “If not here, where?”

· “If not now, when?”

That conversation has and continues to serve as a reminder that leading is about knowing oneself, being clear about purpose, mission, and accepting a reality that inspiring, motivating others comes more from modeling, teaching, integrity, character, and grace.

Grace?

Absolutely – giving and receiving grace is core.

In our fallible human condition, grace is an act critical to effective leadership. As Dr. Terrell clearly pointed out leaders make, take, and commit to risk. In doing so, there are and will be mistakes. Accepting and admitting these shortcomings is not a sign of weakness. Rather it endures leaders to those they lead through the power of grace. Let me be clear, leaders don’t create and sustain followership by consistently and constantly making mistakes. Making, taking, and committing to risk is not about arbitrary, reckless, or ill-conceived actions.

We have witnessed as well as experienced leaders that fail to take action, follow up or follow through, and etc. Indecision, ambiguity, and incoherent actions create a loss or failure of confidence, trust, and commitment.

Conversely, making, taking, and committing to risk require decisiveness, clarity, and coherence. There must be congruency of risk with vision, mission, and core or guiding principles.

Years later, my leadership journey would cross the path of Reverend E. V. Hill of whom I have quoted recently. It is the Reverend Hill I cite with a sobering reality – “if you are leading and no one is following, you are just out on a walk”.

There remains confusion with many leaders that assume that a title or position commands followership. Missing from this mindset is the understanding that followership – the followership that is committed, loyal to a mission, and vision is earned not appointed. Please note that commitment and loyalty must be to the work not to a person or program – the work – the enduring work of teaching and learning.

Dr. Terrell certainly did not limit leadership to risk. Sense and meaning making resonate now more than ever as keys to unlocking the myriad uncertainties, mixed messages, and dissonance created by years of narrowly defined accountability and conflicting purposes of education.

I will in the future attempt to unpack more of the lessons learned from that very purposeful conversation with Dr. Terrell. For now, I ask you to ponder the very question asked of me – “Who are the leaders of this generation?”

“If it is not you, who?”

“If not here, where?”

And, “if not now, when?”

"There is no one left to blame"

Presenting at the National School Board Association’s national conference was a significant milestone for the Anson County Schools. Presenting on a national stage was both affirming and validation for leadership and the dedicated work of our staff at all levels.

An audience of school board members from across the nation listened with great interest of the work to make transparent the challenging work of transformation.

Several school board members indicated their systems were in turnaround. This opened the door for a conversation about the difference between transformation and turnaround.

In the end, most agreed that there is a significant difference between the two. To that end, I was asked to what degree was our staff albeit teachers or administrators aware as well as committed to transformation. I replied less than fifty percent but we were working on developing greater awareness, understanding, and support for transformative work.

A key in creating capacity is being clear that it is the system not people that must be fixed. In doing so, we cannot blame people past or present for our current situation. We must shift as well from seeking new programs to deeper, more critical examination of our practices.

The implementation gap ‐ the gap between expected or desired outcomes and actual results is almost entirely related to deep implementation or the lack of. As we have discussed before, implementation is predicated on those factors associated with personal meaning, relevance as well as a person's sense of purpose, mission, beliefs, and guiding principles. Many of these, if not all, shape habits, conveniences, and behaviors.

We need to look no further than our own personal preferences to understand the challenges, obstacles, or barriers to change. Therefore, leadership cannot be upset, angry, or frustrated when others, who have not had time to fully reflect, ponder, think, process, or consider different practices are reluctant or hesitant to change practice.

Central to transformation is the ownership of dissatisfaction with current performance results. It does little good to have dissatisfaction residing only with a few. We know the vision of "all means all" means little to those who are not dissatisfied that not all our students are performing at proficient in the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics.

Further, the lack of dissatisfaction prevents looking at root cause. Too much time is devoted to blaming administration, teachers, support staff, students, parents, the state, federal government, county, and etc.

With a critical mass of dissatisfied stakeholders, the vision of "all means all" becomes the impetus to a deeper, more critical examination of the causes of the failure to learn and failed learning.

The vision of "all means all" does not mean we will experience drastic performance improvement overnight.

We must remember that the path followed resulting in our current situation is not the path that will lead to “all means all”. It can’t – it wasn’t intended to.

If all our strategies, work plans were focused fundamentally on the work of ensuring that each learner at a minimum demonstrated proficiency first and foremost we would certainly accelerate improved performance for all learners.

In fact, if we were relentless in the pursuit of proficiency no matter what, we would see increased attendance, decreased disruptions, decreases in inappropriate behaviors, decreases in teacher absenteeism, increased student engagement, increased parent participation, and etc. Yes, a relentless pursuit of proficiency no matter what it takes is the powerful first step in making the "all means all" vision reality.

Dissatisfaction, the "all means all" vision, and relentless pursuit of proficiency no matter what it takes are the three factors that will overcome both reluctance and hesitancy.

It will not, however, remove resistance. Those that choose to resist have reasons of their own but I can without hesitation state that these reasons do not have anything to do with ensuring that each learner is proficient.

Though argumentative, it is time to acknowledge what some will construe as a personal attack, offensive, and most certainly not politically correct. We don't have time to discuss or debate whether or not all students should learn, can learn, or must learn the basic skills represented by proficiency.

A preponderance of evidence exists that unequivocally and empirically demonstrates that gender, race, language, socioeconomics, geography, and etc. are merely factors not determinants of learning.

Implementation, deep implementation of what we are doing is required by all, for all and of all.

Why can’t we do this!

"Turnaround or Transformation? It Matters!"

The February 2011 Fast Company magazine included an article by Dan Heath and Chip Heath titled Passion Provokes Action. They write, “Knowledge is rarely enough to spark change.” There has to be something more. “People have to want change.” Concluding “It takes emotion to bring knowledge to a boil” Heath and Heath challenge leaders to use emotion, feelings. Simply, appealing to both the head and the heart.

Ulrich and Woodson in their work, “Connecting Hearts in the Workplace” give voice to what successful leaders know now more than ever. Without meaning there is no change!

When employees associate meaning to their work there is an engendered loyalty to the mission. Meaning, identity, purpose, and relationships shape attitudes. The deeper the commitment, the greater the motivation, the larger the significance of accomplishment, and desire to learn, grow and contribute all emerge from the sense of meaning.

As Ulrich and Woodson write, leaders “who create meaning shape the well‐being of employees, the cultures of their school and the attitude of their community”.

Knowing these truths however has been conspicuously missing from school reform efforts. In the draconian and sanction laden attempts to force schools and school systems to improve, policy makers employed the construct of turnaround. Reasoning that a school or school system that was heading in the wrong direction could turnaround and go in a different or “right” direction, policy makers mandated these schools and school systems turn around.

One of the lessons learned from mandating, sanctioning, penalizing and shaming schools and school systems that failed to turnaround is at the end of the day, improvements if any are short lived. Raising test scores versus the building of enduring habits or disciplines of learning are two different things all together.

Turnaround does not take into account what we know about learning. That is, a learner cannot be forced to learn.

Turnaround initiatives fail fundamentally to create meaning. They are external not internal. They are outside‐in rather than inside‐out. Another shortcoming of turnaround is that the approach completely under estimates context and the power of the culture in place. Hence, requiring a school or school system to turn around without the necessary connections or sense of meaning of the work only further frustrates, obstructs, or undermines the very ends so desperately desired and needed.

The lack of meaning making by turnaround formulas, strategies, and requirements is now being replaced by the more enduring work of transformation – at last!

Transformation is … “a major change in form, nature, or function driven by enduring beliefs, values, behaviors, deeply understood purpose, courage, and unwavering commitment”. Ulrich and Woodson capture succinctly the limitations of turnaround.

• “Turnaround is not transformation”;

• “Turnaround is public statements; transformation is personal commitments”;

• “Turnaround focuses on cutting costs; transformation builds an emotional bond”; and

• “Turnaround changes structures and reporting relationships; transformation changes the fundamental culture of an organization.”

Thus, transformation is the constant and consistent “making” of sense as well as meaning to and of the work – the enduring work of teaching and learning. Motivated by so much more than a test score, transformation by its’ definition connects personal and organizational meaning to the work. It is inside – out!

This is what we so desperately need especially in schools and school systems where the value proposition of education has so narrowly been defined by a single measure. In many respects, transformation is it. If schools and school systems cannot transform – we may well indeed see the demise of the public school system. There is no returning to yesterday. There is no going backward.

The choice is ours – individually as well as corporately. An amazing feature of transformation is that it is just that, a choice. One cannot be forced, coerced, or made to transform given that it comes from within not from the outside.

Without too much convincing, have we not learned that mandating, demanding, and legislating improvement doesn’t work?

When and only if the desired improvement connects with enduring beliefs, values, behaviors, understood purpose, courage, and unwavering commitment does it come about – we call that transformation.

"A Hole in the boat is a hole in the Whole Boat"

Recently I was honored to participate as a panelist discussing the topic of Education in America. The audience was a mixture of private and non-profit chief executive officers from the Nashville area. The topics included fiscal constraints, promises of technology, alternatives to traditional educational delivery models, Charter schools, athletics, vouchers, and the future of education.

Comments and remarks on these topics varied, as one would expect.

I did make the opportunity to ask the audience to reflect and write what they believed to be the purpose of education. After a few moments, I asked the audience on the count of three to verbalize their purpose.

After the audience spoke, I turned to Dr. John McLaughlin, Executive Vice President of Research and Analytics, Education Services of America and asked, “Could you discern a clear message, a clear purpose?”

He smiled, laughed, and said “no”.

I went on to offer that for the past decade possibly longer, we have not had a clear aim or purpose of education. The purpose of education has been debated from time eternal. As the audience demonstrated, there is not clear agreement on the purpose or aim of education. As such, it is not surprising that there is conflict within and between all expressions of community – towns, counties, cities, states, regions, schools, school systems, and etc.

The lack of agreement is also center to the funding of education.

The absence of a clearly defined purpose is, in part why education is defined by a single metric – a test score.

As I provoked the audience further, I asked them to write down their high school grade point average (GPA.) as well as their Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score. As they did I asked, what were the skill, knowledge, and experience sets that have caused them to be successful today. Did their GPA or SAT scores reflect these?

My point was that the habits or disciplines of learning are more than a GPA or SAT score. What was it about the education that many received in the 60’s and 70’s? What was it about learning to use our minds well, learning to relate, and learning to decide that allowed us to become who we are today?

This age of accountability as defined by test scores is actually very dangerous and only stands to get worse.

Without a clear purpose or aim of education, creating a generation or two of learners that can take tests but can’t create, innovate, or use their imaginations to solve real life, real world problems may be just what the policy makers envisioned for the future of Americans.

Had I been a little more thoughtful in my remarks, I would have used this vignette from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland between Alice and the Cheshire Cat.

Alice asks, "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don't much care where--," said Alice.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"-- so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

We have for almost four years been redefining, repurposing education in Anson County. It starts first with a clear aim, clear purpose that goes far beyond a test score. Building the capacities in our learners with the enduring skills, habits and disciplines of learning requires relentless pursuit of the basic skills to be sure. However, we must remind ourselves that the basic skills and proficiency are merely the starting line not the finish line. We must stay the course!

Questions? YES!

Questions are our friends.

Without questions, we cannot improve. But what if they aren’t the right questions? Or we’re not interested in improving?

As we witnessed at the annual joint meeting of the Commissioners and Board of Education, the level and subject of questions must go beyond those that have little if any purpose other than to create controversy, division, or serve as a distraction from the real work of improving our school system.

Improvement requires asking profound questions.

Improvement requires an unprecedented willingness to examine practices, processes, and procedures that seek to identify and understand root cause.

Improvement requires transparency in discussions including the motives, agendas, beliefs, and values of those asking the questions as well as those responding.

Improvement requires humility, truth telling, and transparency.

Lastly, improvement requires a mindset – a different mindset that acknowledges and accepts that achieving different results will not come from continuing to do, continuing to behave, and continuing to believe in those practices and programs that caused the Anson County Schools to be where we are -

Two Questions – Fundamental

1. Do you want all Anson County students to learn to high standards?

2. Do you believe that all Anson County students can learn to high standards?

I think the following statement captures for me the mindset that underpins my response to these fundamental questions.

"I spent along time trying to come to grips with my doubts when suddenly I realized that I had better come to grips with what I believe. I have since moved from the agony of questions that I cannot answer to the reality of answers that I cannot escape."

Thomas Skinner

What we believe matters – moreover how we behave matters more


As a point of context, consider the questions asked of you that in turn you ask of administration, to what degree do the questions relate to the desire for all students to succeed or do they have a different purpose?

Do these questions in any way lead to a different solution, strategy, or practice to achieve the ends we seek for our learners? 
Let me be clear, many of the questions asked point more to a lack of understanding, awareness, or connection to the work, necessary work to improve our school system.

Without hesitation or reservation administration has a responsibility to make sure information is not only accessible, but also freely available to all. Leadership also has a responsibility to “make sense” or “make connections” of the work. 


The day of information as power has long since past. 


Bane of our Existence


The initiatives we have implemented have resulted in many improvements. However, we should be further ahead than we are. The bane of our existence remains the inconsistency of implementation of effective practice. The inconsistency of implementation is more or less attributed to two factors.

1. Ineffective training; or


2. Intentionally choosing not to implement


To address the inconsistencies underpinning these two factors is to look directly at leadership – central office, building administration, and classroom. 


If our leadership is not fully committed to implementation fidelity we cannot expect our classroom teachers and support staff to be fully committed. 


If our leadership team, therefore, does not embrace the aforementioned different mindset, how can we expect our classroom teachers to embrace it?

Simply, if our beliefs, values, and behaviors are not those that are steeped in the reality that all students can learn to high standards then we will continue to produce inconsistent results.

However, it should be clear that if we don’t achieve the results expected, this time, the State of North Carolina has no choice but to take over the school system.

Choice


The choice, therefore, is all ours.

We can choose to stay in place that is more or less about staying at the same level of performance or returning to past performance levels, or we can choose to move forward. 


Going forward will require asking different questions. Yet, it may be time that we give voice to the answers we can no longer avoid, no longer dismiss.