Tag Archives: Collaboration

Learning from Robert Fritz

Dealing with difficult times during change initiatives

We have all started the year focused upon a common goal. We have had alignment conversations that enable us to contribute to the vision of our schools. We have intent and now we are in the first part of the year where our actions reflect that collective purpose.

For many of us the strategic focus of our schools is around developing an aspect of school that we want to improve. This involves investigating our current practice, reflecting upon the results and planning actions that will lead us to a desired state that aligns to our collective vision. This sounds relatively simple yet our lived lives as school leaders tell us that it is easier said than done.

Reactive Tension drags us back to current reality
Reactive Tension drags us back to current reality

According to Robert Fritz there is a structural tension in any new venture. This is the tension between the vision and current reality. Reactive tension is those thoughts and feelings that drag us back to the current reality, the “things were ok weren’t they?” or “it is really hard this new thing – I want the old way!” thoughts. A Leader focuses upon creative tension to problem solve and negotiate around hurdles and obstacles in the drive toward the vision.

We have a desired state centred around reflection and feedback in our KnowledgeNET. Our desired state is one of student, teacher, parent feedback that evolves into a reflective dialogue about current learning and what needs to happen next. Four years ago we had paper portfolios called LiPS – Learning in Progress Samples (Our LiPS tell us about learning). These were huge folders of annotated samples that went home at the end of each term and were a massive workload for teachers. Active reflection is a key component of developing self monitoring, self regulating, self motivated learners and LiPS were partly meeting these needs.

The change to KnowledgeNET was a purposeful act designed to move us away from the current reality to a place of active reflection and feedback. It was hard. There were technical issues, there were implementation issues and there were competing mental models on the nature and purpose of assessment. These issues were at all levels of the school from staff, students, parents and board members. Learning something new is always difficult and new learning should be sustainable – after all as Pascale (1990) says “ideas acquired with ease are discarded with ease.”

The formative years of KnowledgeNET implementation were constant alignment conversations as people grappled with these issues. We focused upon collaboratively solving problems around the technical issues. We were clear about the desired end state of what we wanted to achieve and proactively communicated this to all stakeholders and asked for their input toward this end. As leaders we could have said “yes you are right it is too hard” but we focussed upon creating positive dialogue around the possibilities once we nailed implementation – imagine the conversations we will have about learning, imagine the type of student this will help develop. This focus on creative tension makes our initiatives sustainable thus imbedding them in the fabric of our classrooms, schools and communities.

Starting the Year: Alignment

Putting into practice your school vision and pedagogical goals from the first day of term

The start of the new school year brings new staff, along with numerous ideas and initiatives to try and directives and targets to meet. The challenge for leaders is to ensure that this energy, passion and wealth of new ideas align with the vision and strategic direction of the school. The key to the successful implementation of any initiative, goal or strategy is alignment. Alignment of people and resources requires deliberate acts of leadership that are centred on relationships.

Shared Development Of Mental Models

As leaders our job is to ‘keep the herd heading roughly west’ (Peters & Waterman, 1982). We must be vision focussed at all times and have a clear understanding of the ‘mental models’ that are required of ourselves and others. Mental models are defined as our values, beliefs and assumptions about the world that in turn drive our actions. Alignment is a crucial mental model in any organisation – we all know that you get further if everyone is paddling in the same direction. A leader (in the broadest sense) must focus on alignment of vision to everyday practice and this occurs well before day one of term.

LoP
Vision focus for maximum leverage

Daniel Kim’s Levels of Perspective (Senge et al, 1999), provides a useful model for leaders, helping them understand how to maximise leverage by developing key mental models that play a vital role in the realisation of the school’s vision and goals.

At Taupaki we have created a vision that we aspire to, extracted core values from this vision that we live by, and set in place a development cycle that addresses the mental models necessary to live in the school of our dreams. As leaders of learning it is our collective responsibility walk the talk in our everyday interactions. The process of changing mental models takes time.

Alignment Conversations

The value of co-construction of vision, goals, targets and actions cannot be underestimated in order to generate alignment. The more people that have a hand or say in the planning phases of the school year, the greater the cohesion.

Start of year meetings need to focus on the strategic goals not administrivia! Dialogue with teachers should be alignment conversations around how they are contributing to the vision of the school and how the school will contribute to their development. These conversations are incredibly powerful in gaining insight into teacher values and beliefs as well as opportunities to coach teachers in framing an inquiry into their professional practice. We have sought to do this at Taupaki by providing adequate time and space for these conversations to happen. We have found that including teachers in the planning phases of annual targets. Our focus (target) students are identified through data analysis and then strategies are co-constructed as a staff. This fosters a mental model of achievement being a collective responsibility.

“He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!”

What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, people, people!

Māori Whakataukī (proverb)

References

Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982) In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best-run companies New York: Harper and Row

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change – The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organisations: A fifth discipline resource. New York: Doubleday.

 

Impending League Tables

I complied with the Official Information Act this week and forwarded our Annual Report to the reporter who requested it. Not a big deal really as it is a public document that anyone can access. Our data is there for all to see.

At a Principlas’ Cluster meeting earlier this week Louis Guy from the NZEI really hit the nail on the head with a scenario he painted…

Imagine what the first principals’ cluster meeting will be like after the league tables are out. One person in the room will be the top ranked school in the cluster. Imagine what that principal may feel walking into the room? Perhaps they feel that their colleagues will not trust the data they have provided. They may feel a little sheepish at being labelled the best. They may feel that as a school they have worked hard for that student achievement but cannot crow about their success for fear of being labelled as touting for children. That being said – depending on the ego of the principal concerned they may be feeling a little superior to the rest.

Imagine the school principal walking in who is second in the cluster. Having just come from a discussion with a parent who asked why their school’s data is not where the top ranked school’s data is.

What about the colleague who walks into that meeting being ranked at the bottom. What are they thinking? How are they feeling? What discussions have they had with their BoT, their community, the media?

Everyone else in the room will have looked at the league table and jumped up ladders (Ladders of Inference – Argyris) They are making assumptions, value judgements, creating stories of data that are rooted firmly in their own interpretations.

Is this competitive collaboration? Will having this information in the public domain raise achievement?

As a cluster we can have an agreed approach, a code of conduct if you like. Northland Schools have already committed to the following statements.

  • The data will not be used to promote their school through websites, newsletters, media releases or any other public information source because it would be unethical to do so 
  • They will not draw comparisons between schools using the data
  • They will avoid any activities that could legitimise national standards data as good public information
  • They will share other positive achievement information about their schools
  • They will issue a collective media release on their agreed position
  • They will explain to their boards and communities the reasons for their concerns
  • They will continue to deliver a broad rich curriculum
I agree with these statements – in fact, as principals in our cluster we all agree. But the first bullet point needs some dialogue.
Schools promote themselves all the time. Some of us do not promote ourselves enough. There is great work happening in a large number of schools that never sees the light of day. This statement is loaded with assumption and judgements. I suppose the intent of this statement is that we will not promote the place on the league table or use National Standards data as a selling point. An interesting point as schools often celebrate data with their communities. Information about how well the school is progressing toward their goals is essential in building confidence and having a happy community.
What do you think about this shared approach to the threat of league tables?
Can we trust all our colleagues to walk the talk?
Will we be looking sideways at each other in cluster meetings?
What Ladders will we be climbing?