“Moving ‘whats’ to ‘ hows’ – not that easy”

Last Monday, all the instructional coordinators met with the Instructional Program Leadership team for the purposes of increasing awareness, understanding, and support for the myriad programs let alone staff engaged in the unprecedented work of transformation.

Facilitating the meeting, I asked staff to select from a list of over sixty (60) products, programs, activities, or etc. posted on a white board to explain “what” they were, “why” they were, and “how” they were in our school system.

While they were writing I grouped the items into five (5) color coded affinity groups. Staff submitted their cards according to the color code. I then had Instructional Program Leadership articulate what the groupings were to the whole group.

The point?

The list of items in and of themselves is overwhelming. Yet, once grouped by what they have in common it doesn’t appear daunting.

Moreover, applying our theory of action (What + Why + How = Results) the list represents the “how” of achieving the work. Though it was never intended to create a sense of any thing other than “do-ability”, the list or rather each item on the list has one been categorized as a “what” not a “how”.

This is unfortunate and certainly explains why many have felt “initiative” overload.

However, when seen as a “how” each item on the list becomes what it was intended to be – a tool, strategy to achieve a desired and expected result.

Specifically and for example, if staff see Teachtown, Headsprout Early Reading, Fast ForWord, Headsprout Early Comprehension Reading Assistant, and Learning Together as a “what” rather than as a set of tools or “how” to assist us toward eradicating illiteracy, they will not understand the utility and import of these powerful, results producing programs. They will, sadly, see them as something being “bolted” to the side, an inconvenience and certainly suspect.

In a time when every choice, decision, program, activity is second guessed, questioned, or challenged irrespective of whether or not there is a “better” or more effective solution, strategy, or etc., we must be diligent in our efforts to move “whats” to “hows”.

In fact the failure of leadership to assist in the shift from “what” to “how” regarding each of these programs with classroom instruction is exactly why some staff appear to resist or at best reluctant to fully commit and implement to fidelity.

Shifting a “what” to a “how” is simple but not so easy for a few understandable reasons. These reasons include but are not limited to:

1. Lack of clearly defining the problem being addressed;

2. Lack of expected or desired results;

3. Lack of connection to individual and organizational values;

4. Lack of a detailed implementation plan including communication strategies;

5. Lack of a detailed monitoring plan;

6. Lack of a detailed means to measure effect; and

7. Lack of a detailed strategy to adjust, correct, or abandon strategy, program, practice, or activity.

To address, in part the lack of the aforementioned, we are shifting our district, department, and school improvement and planning processes to the Annual Planning Table format. This format requires thoughtful and clearly articulated strategies and tactics with defined goals, targets, measures, timelines, and data sources for each phase of the continuous improvement cycle.

The implementation of granularity into the process as required through the task analysis of each strategy ensures a much more robust implementation, monitoring, and accountability for the work.

Additionally, the Learning Development Center’s first seminar is fully dedicated to “connecting dots” related to shifting “whats” to “hows”.

To do so, our Learning Development Coordinators are using a road map, if you will, to develop awareness, understanding, and support for the work in motion. This road map is entirely devoted to demonstrating the connections of our theory of action.

Though is may seem frivolous to some to spend time connecting dots to assist all staff in their understanding the difference between a “what” and a “how”, our results to date suggest in fact we have not made the shift in not only our understanding but in application of these powerful tools to improve teaching and learning.

We are therefore resolved in all we do to constantly and consistently connect the dots.