SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – ‘THE OBVIOUS’. . .

We do seem to know that what is ‘obvious’ to one or two or three may not be obvious at all to the other one or two or three. What follows are some of what seems obvious to me when it comes to school improvement. I do invite you, gentle reader, to emerge a list of what seems obvious to you as you consider our topic, school improvement.

It seems obvious to me that school improvement entails discerning and then engaging high leverage points rather than spending time, energy, and resources on low leverage points. How often do school improvement efforts put time, energy and resources on low leverage points? Too often I think. A high leverage point more often leads to over-time sustainable improvement; a high leverage point generally takes less over-all effort. A low leverage point generally takes up a great deal of time, energy, and valuable resources with little improvement – much less sustained improvement. In my last post I mentioned the failure of ‘rolling out school-wide programs;’ this is an example of a low leverage initiative. In his stimulating 1990 book, ‘The Fifth Discipline,’ Peter Senge, et al. noted that in their research high leverage points were those that were rooted in small, focused efforts. As I also noted in my last post, rather than rolling out a school-wide initiative there is high leverage – hence more chance for ‘success’ – if a school were to begin small, say with a department or even with an incoming class. At minimum this will take less time, energy and require fewer resources than a school-wide roll out; this alone can be successful for it frees up other folks and their time, energy and resources (say to sustain what is already working).

It seems obvious to me that leader ‘breeds’ followers; the type of follower ‘bred’ is directly connected to the type of leader (e.g. coercive leaders ‘breed’ dependent-fearful followers’ who at best are compliant and are at worse subversive). What is less obvious is that the follower dramatically affects the leader (less obvious in that we don’t seem to pay enough attention to this dynamic). What is less obvious is that ‘leadership’ is a by-product of the relationship between the leader and the led; both are accountable to, both are responsible for, both are challenged to be response-able, and both are entrusted with this relationship and hence with what we call ‘leadership’ is entrusted to both.

It seems obvious that the metaphor for school is ‘organization’ (or in some instances it is ‘a business’). The metaphors we use powerfully determine what we choose. It seems obvious to me that a ‘community metaphor’ will be more helpful (some schools have embraced a ‘family metaphor’ and on the surface this sounds helpful but if we stop and explore the variety of ‘families’ possible the potential conflicts become more obvious). As I continue to reflect upon the metaphor embraced it appears to me that school improvement efforts might be more effective given a community metaphor (e.g. Our school is a learning, working, spirit-filled, serving community).

It seems obvious to me that school improvements that are commitment focused and commitment rooted are more likely to be embraced than school improvements that are not so focused and rooted. Commitments require clear agreements. Commitments require the participants to be trust-worthy. Commitments require the participants to be unconditionally response-able. Commitments require the participants to be critical-thinkers. Commitments require the participants name and discuss the unameable and the undiscussable (how many ‘elephants’ reside hidden in the faculty lounge, for example). There are other commitment requirements, but these will suffice for now.

So, gentle reader, what is obvious to you when it comes to school improvement?

I leave us with the wonderful words of the writer, William Pollard: Without change there is no innovation, creativity, or incentive for improvement. Those who initiate change will have a better opportunity to manage the change that is inevitable.