For Ed Leader Success, Perhaps Our Answers Aren't Found in John Maxwell or Jim Collins

In reading Fenwick English and Lisa Ehrich's book Leading Beautifully: Educational Leadership as Connoiseurship, I was reminded of a current problem with educational leadership. Our current educational leadership discourse is mostly a leadership discourse that gains its truth from business discourses of leadership. It still does that regularly by borrowing from pop leadership books such as those of John Maxwell, Simon Sinek, and Jim Collins. This results in the creation of a school leader who is a technician who goes simply applies the latest “scientific gimmicks” to the school organization. Has anyone stopped to question whether these leadership technologies are really “good” for schools? Is not being a leader of school different from being a leader of an organization whose primary responsibility is to seek short-term profit and success?

The result of this infatuation with business leadership discourse is a school organization enamored with short terms gains and a total dismissal of schools as long-term institutions whose goals are long-term, well-beyond the present. While there might be some disagreement, business leaders are mostly focused on short-term profits, which is what businesses do. They have no choice, because they exist to make money for their owners and/or stockholders.

With this intense fascination with the business leadership literature, we now have school leaders in search of technologies that will bring about quick test score improvements and quick improvement of other educational measures. These are only short term measures and are not proven indicators of the long-term successful lives of our students. Our schools have become places where the short-term matters more than the long term. This leads to a school and school system left ravaged by ambitious “business-minded” school leaders who are sometimes only interested in promoting their careers and who could care less about the longer sustainability of the institution of public education. Once these business-minded leaders have successfully promoted their careers, they move on to the greener pastures to which their ambitions take them.

I think it past time to take a more conoisseur-like focus on educational leadership. Business-thinking works fine for those seeking short-term gains. If one takes what English & Ehrich (2016) call Leadership as a Connoisseurship, then the work of leadership begins with a work that focuses on shaping and molding creatively an organization into a societal instution who is focused not on short-term gains, but on schools whose purpose is to shape individuals. Our schools are often now focused on shaping individuals for the short-term needs of industry and business. This is a mistake. These business and industries have proven time and again when they get a better deal somewhere else, they will move on leaving a hord of unemployed workers behind again searching for work. Instead, a leader as connoisseur focuses on shaping the institution into one that in turn shapes lives for long-term existance on Earth. It’s time to listen less to business discourses of short-term economics and engage in a long-term task of creating human beings that can live in whatever kind of environment they have to exist within.

English, F. & Ehrich, L. (2016). Leading beautifully: Educational leadership as connoiseurship. Routledge: New York, NY.

Merit Pay in Education: An Exercise in Both Manipulation and Futility

"In the workplace, there is no getting around the fact that "the basic purpose of merit pay is manipulative." Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes

Merit pay is one of those ideas in education that just won't die. When budgets get tight, policymakers and politicians both look at the money being spent on educator salaries and the idea of paying educators based on performance starts looking attractive. "If only we identify the best teachers and pay them more, all will be well," they think. Then, the task of trying to identify and operationalize what a "best teacher" looks like begins, and it immediately falls apart. There's never been any agreement on what characterizes a "good teacher," and there probably never will. The current reform and accountability craze would have us believe "test scores a good teacher makes," but those of us who've been in classrooms for sometime know that tests don't always tell us what a good student is much less a good teacher. The pursuit of trying to find a specific, clear definition of good teaching and a good teacher is impossible, because teaching and learning, for that matter, are way too complex to reduce to a simple operationalized definition.

As Kohn points out, the problem with merit pay is that it is manipulative. It is simply an attempt to control educators and elicit a behavior, and in most cases, the desired behavior is the production of higher test scores. The problem is, many of us educators know "getting higher test scores" is a superficial goal. Getting a high score on a North Carolina Final Exam or End of Grade Test means very little in the lives of our students. We can't say to our students, for example, "If you get a high grade on this reading End of Grade Test, you'll be successful in life." If we do say that, we're trivializing education. So the idea of manipulating teachers to get them to raise test scores by merit pay is doomed to fail for those of us who see education's purpose as more universal and global. Educating good bubble-sheet bubblers is quite different than educating solid citizens who can take their place in the world and perhaps change things for the better.

In the end, merit pay will always fail in education, because the enterprise in which we engage is much too complex to be subject to its manipulative effects. Merit pay has been tried and it failed every time. Unfortunately, those who still have the faith in manipulation by reward just can't seem to let go of an anachronistic view of human motivation.

Posted with Blogsy

21st Century Leadership: Fighting the Need to Always Be Right

"True courage comes from moving away from having to be right and checking our ego at the door to see the bigger picture." Mark Adams, Courageous Conflict: Leading with Integrity and Authenticity

In our roles as leaders, how many times do we insist upon having the monopoly on "being right?" There are many who still attempt to practice the "it's-my-way-or-the-highway" leadership style, but in 21st century education it is anachronistic. As a leadership practice, it is fossil of a time when you could expect those "underneath" you to have less knowledge. You could expect that those whom you lead don't have the full picture that you have. That is reversed in a high-tech, twenty-first century world, where those who are "down the organizational chart" actually often know more than you do. In a information-rich, twenty-first century world, leaders can't ever expect to control the knowledge flow. It's simply a transparent, knowledge-flooded world and we, as leaders might as well get used to it.

As Mark Adams indicates, "true courage" is being able to check your ego at the door just so you can see the bigger picture. Being a 21st century leader is being able to accept that you can't possibly know everything, and that perhaps you don't know as much as you thought you did. Courageous leaders today, do check their egos for the sake of getting the bigger picture. Leaders with true courage don't fight to be right; they fight to be open to the possibilities in a world in which they know their own limitations.

 

Posted with Blogsy

NC Should Hold Everyone for Pearson PowerSchool Implementation Malfunction Accountable

In two previous posts, "Pearson PowerSchool Disasters in NC and Tech Lessons to Be Learned From It" and "Update! Pearson Sees Most of NC Users as Satisfied with PowerSchool---Huh?" I outlined the major issues North Carolina public schools are navigating due to Pearson's malfunctioning PowerSchool software. Based on yesterday's Charlotte Observer, it seems now state education officials are trying to get money back from the partially failed one-year implementation of PowerSchool, (See "NC on Troubled School Data System: Give Us Money Back"). This is the least Pearson owes educators in the state of North Carolina.

What was also of interest in the Charlotte Observer article was the fact that there was at least one superintendent in this state who saw this "trainwreck" coming. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Superintendent Heath Morrison reportedly "asked state officials to slow the timeline and help with local costs, but was refused on both counts." It appears that state policy-makers were bent on taking the Pearson discount to implement in one year, rather than trying to do what was probably expedient and implement more slowly.

At the end of the day, what is important is that both Pearson and the state officials who pushed through this rushed implementation be held accountable for their mistakes. We talk a great deal in education about holding teachers, principals, and even schools accountable in education, but when major mishaps like this Pearson PowerSchool implementation happen, few seem to talk or want to talk about holding those who rushed this accountable. It is refreshing to see that the state is now going to at least hold Pearson somewhat accountable for the mess their software has caused.

I would also suggest that those who decided to push this one-year implementation be held accountable as well. Pearson should also pay for all the lost time districts and schools have spent dealing with the mess their software has caused. In addition, Pearson should also be mandated to provide proper training for everyone. Just paying for the times their software was down does not take into account all the times their software may have been available, but was malfunctioning and unusable. Perhaps the state should seek a refund for that as well.

If accountability is good for the school level educators, then companies that sell our schools products, and those who direct the implementation of those products need to be held accountable too.

Update! Pearson Sees Most of NC Users as Satisfied with PowerSchool---Huh?

Yesterday, I posted about the many issues we are struggling with North Carolina’s roll-out of the Pearson’s PowerSchool student data system. Today, there was an article of interest on the News and Observer web site entitled “NC Schools Dealing with Problem-Plagued State Computer System.” According to the article, North Carolina is spending $7.1 million dollars implementing PowerSchool this year. During the last decade, North Carolina also spent millions on the old but now defunct NC WISE data system. The article also says Pearson has corrected a lot of problems as well. But from a school's perspective, they haven't corrected the biggest problems we're experiencing. 

Still, I just can’t help but comment on this statement by Pearson spokesman Brandon Pinette:

“We are confident the system is working better every day, and that the majority of users are satisfied with the new capabilities they have.”

Now that statement is a bit puzzling. From where does Pearson obtain this “confidence?” Also, where do they get information about the "majority of users being satisfied with this product?" As far as I know, I haven’t seen any surveys or any other ways they have asked us, the customers, how things are going. When a company makes those assertions you just have to wonder who they're talking to.

I just had to email my parents today and apologize once again for problems caused by their issues. That makes three times this year, that I can recall, that I have had to apologize to parents for problems caused by Pearson’s PowerSchool. I can’t even count the number of times teachers have expressed frustration with the software. Parents have been understanding so far, but one can only imagine what's going to happen when some student loses out on getting into college because of a Pearson mishap on a high school transcript.

Pearson and the state needs to refocus their efforts to get PowerSchool to do the simplest of things. For example, the main capabilities that need to always work for high schools ( I can’t speak for elementary or middle schools) are:

• Attendance Data: Need to flawlessly be able to enter and retrieve accurate attendance data.
• Grading Data: Need to flawlessly be able to enter and retrieve grading data.
• Reporting Functions: Need to be able to print effectively our most important reports. These include: progress reports (with accurate attendance data), report cards (with accurate attendance data, GPAs), and accurate transcripts.

From a school operations perspective, these are the must-have functions of any student data system. Whether it can interface with test-data systems, disciplinary data systems, or any other state systems is secondary to normal, everyday school operations. Focus should be on getting the primary functions schools need to work.

The state should have paid the extra money for a later roll-out or somehow negotiated better terms with Pearson. Yes, it has been difficult. I was around with the roll-out of NC WISE and it was difficult as well, but this Pearson PowerSchool rollout, in my opinion is ten times worse. And, to make matters worse, we actually have individuals who work for Pearson who think the majority of users are satisfied. Perhaps its nice when your company has a virtual monopoly on a product.

Pearson PowerSchool Disasters in NC and Tech Lessons to Be Learned From It

I have always fundamentally understood that when it comes to implementation of new innovations, whether technological, instructional or organizational, it is a cardinal rule to “Not implement too much at once!” I’ve heard that mantra during my whole career as an educator, and even as a classroom teacher we have been cautioned not to try to change too much too fast. In school leadership, they tell you the same thing. Trying to implement too much, too fast, usually results in nothing being implemented well or at all.

It’s too bad the state of North Carolina recently forgot this important wisdom when it took on implementing Pearson’s PowerSchool student data system, a new online educator evaluation system called NCEES, or North Carolina Educator Evaluation System, and a new teaching assessment resource system called Schoolnet. Now that we are one-half year in with implementation, all three systems have been been so buggy as to be almost unusable.

About four years ago, Pearson purchased the company that supported North Carolina’s Student data system called NC WISE. Pearson then informed the state that it was shutting down support for NC WISE. Naturally, North Carolina then purchased Pearson’s PowerSchool software to provide the state with a state-wide student data system. In addition, North Carolina won a considerable sum of money from its Race to the Top application, and a portion of this was used to create a “one-stop data portal” for all the data educators need. State education officials called this portal “Home Base.” Through “Home Base,” educators theoretically can access  three programs and all the data they could possibly want. One is PowerSchool which is the state’s student data depository and teacher grade book. Next is the NCEES or the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System, and Schoolnet, which is a source that helps teachers with formative assessments tied to state testing. The idea was that educators would have one portal to access each of these important programs. While all three have been failing to work as intended, PowerSchool seems to have the greatest impact on school operations and on kids and it has caused one problem after another.

Now, it’s January, and there are still enormous issues with the system. In PowerSchool, students’ transcripts aren’t always accurate. Schools can’t access discipline incident features, and sometimes report cards can’t be printed. We can’t even trust attendance data on report cards right now due to issues with software. The list of failures for this program is way too long list in this blog post. The short of it is that there’s a whole lot of educators and staff in this state frustrated with this software and its gazillion bugs. I’m not even sure Pearson, nor the state education department can even repair its image after this fiasco. In addition, PowerSchool is beginning to become the butt of many, many jokes among educators. Say the name, and many times there is a collective groan in the room. When I have to tell a parent that I can’t print them a report card right now because of some technical issue in the program, or I have teachers frustrated repeatedly because they can’t get in to take attendance; that’s a pretty good sign that PowerSchool as a product fails to provide the service it’s supposed to provide.

Tech support is also non-existent or sparse. If you can ever get someone in tech support to answer your email, you usually get the answer, “We’re working on it.” That too is hardly acceptable. Should it not be worked on before it’s used? Would I want my car dealer to tell me as I drove off, “Come in next week and we’ll add the brakes?” If my cell phone service or cable provider were to tell me that for even two or three days, I would be looking to change providers. Perhaps North Carolina needs to do the same. If Pearson can’t deliver a product that streamlines and makes it easier for educators to do their jobs, then maybe we need to find another product.

Now those still trying to salvage this sinking ship will try to tell you that there are always bugs when you try to implement something new. Yes, there are always issues, but what we’re dealing with here is a “Pestilential PowerSchool Swarm of bugs” that should be embarrassing to those who still advocate for this product. When I go to my computer, I shouldn’t feel dread when I realize I have to access Home Base. It should fit my experience as a user seamlessly. But that isn’t how it is with PowerSchool or NCEES or Schoolnet. Instead, when someone calls me wanting a schedule, I am overcome with dread as I click on my PowerSchool shortcut icon. Will it work this time? Will I be able to easily find the information I want? The odds are perhaps 50-50 or 20-50, depending on the time of day, week or month. It might even prove impossible.

In my opinion, North Carolina and Pearson have forgotten some fundamental principles that could have guided their implementation and avoided all the issues we face with Home Base, PowerSchool and NCEES. Here’s some advice, and some lesson principles we might learn from this experience.

1. Limit implementation. Instead of trying to implement 3 new data systems at once,  try one. The problem is we have three new programs and neither of them is working well 6 months into implementation. Why not try to get one implemented and working rather than having three that fail to work properly. You can save a great deal of frustration for everybody by being realistic in your implementation plans. Start small and add, rather then hit everybody with everything at once.

2. Realize that a data system or program can’t possibly do everything. Far as I know, the PowerSchool program as Pearson originally designed might function well. North Carolina has obviously asked for all these updates and revisions to make the system its own. Perhaps it’s time to take a realistic assessment of the software limitations and just realize it can’t do all that we would like it to do. When programs get complicated; things go wrong. Just ask Microsoft or even Apple. Get a program that operates well, then you can have an experimental version operating on the side to try new features and ideas. You can’t sail a ship as you build it!

3. Keep it simple.  Steve Jobs understood this well. When anything---software to TVs----get more and more complicated; then more and more can go wrong and usually does. So what if you can claim your student data system does all these things. But what good is it if it does none of those things well? Simple is good. Keep the user experience simple. Complexity is only good when it’s simple.

4. Always keep the end user in mind. This is just plain common sense. Software manufacturers know this. You can’t sell a product that makes its users miserable. When designing any student data system, you must always keep those using it in mind. Perhaps it would be neat to add the ability to enter disciplinary data into the system. But if doing so makes the user experience more difficult, then table the idea until you can incorporate and reflect on the user experience. Keeping the end user in mind at all times means making sure you know who your users are and what they need to be able to do to successfully operate from day-to-day.

In some ways, North Carolina’s struggles with PowerSchool, NCEES, and Home Base is symptomatic of a greater problem we have in education. In our zeal to make things better, we sometimes make things worse. Also, instead of letting what we do as educators----teaching and learning---drive how we design what we do, we let the stuff---the technology----drive what we do. Our data systems should not dictate what we do in our schools; they should not even be noticeable. I certainly should not dread using them. There are major issues with these systems. Perhaps its time to start with just the imperatives; what must our data systems do to facilitate the operation of our schools. Then, we build that first and make it work.

Being Right Isn't the Most Important Thing: Getting Leadership Right

"One of the biggest problems we encounter is verbal communication that is misunderstood or unskillfully handled." Sharon Salzberg & Robert Thurman, Love Your Enemies: How to Break the Anger Habit & Be a Whole Lot Happier

It's Monday morning, and you're sitting at your desk. You get a call from your school receptionist that Ms. (You Insert the Name Here) has arrived in the office and she is agitated and angry, much like she usually is. Your receptionist informs you that she is upset once again about something that's happened to her daughter in the classroom. Upon hearing this news, you begin to tense up, as if ready for battle. You just didn't need to face this parent this morning. She has a habit of showing up when a thousand things are already on your calendar. You tell your receptionist that you'll be there in just a few minutes.

This scenario is common experience for any school administrator. Even when I was a teacher, there were those few parents I just hated to get a phone message in my box or an email requesting a meeting. I knew they were angry, and I knew they wanted a piece of me. They were generally unhappy with life and wanted to take it out on me and whoever else happens to be convenient. As Salzberg and Thurman point out, these moments are when our verbal communication can be easily misunderstood if we don't handle speaking and acting skillfully. In these crucial moments when others approach us armed and ready, it is crucial that we use the right speech.

According to Buddhist thinking, the criteria for determining what "right speech" is involves two questions: 1) Is it true? and 2) Is it useful? Notice that saying the right thing here involves both of these. What we say obviously must be true. Speaking falsehoods and untruths are never acceptable. But also notice that just because something is true that doesn't mean we have to say it. Take the parent scenario above. While the truth might be that the parent is being entirely unreasonable and a bully, it would not be considered skillful to state this truth directly. Just because something is true does not give us blanket permission to say it. What we need is sensitivity and discernment, according to Salzberg and Thurman.

How does this look in life and in our leadership in the school and classroom? We sometimes must recognize "being silent is sometimes better than speech that is not true or speech that is not useful."Speaking lies and deception are never successful in resolving issues. If untruths are used, once the truth is known, even if at a later date, the issue becomes even more complicated because now we have our own deception of others to deal with too. On the other hand, things that might be true, might also be best left unsaid because speaking them is not useful. Being insensitive and uncouth is rampant in American society today. Many, many government leaders seem to lack sensitivity. They speak what might be true, but is certainly not useful. Here are some excellent questions we can ask ourselves during these crucial moments when we're trying to decide what to say:

• What actually matters the most at this moment? What do I care about more than anything else right now? Answering this question truthfully makes it very difficult to say what is unskillful. In the parent scenario earlier, it becomes immediately clear that neither the parent's obvious cantankerousness nor your aggravation are paramount. Determining what happened to the child that concerns the parent is most important. By refocusing out attention on what matters most we can set aside everything else.
• When you find yourself in conflict, do you care more about being right or being happy? Often, we get so caught up in our own righteousness that we seem to forget that "being right" isn't the most important thing at a given moment. Sometimes parents or even students we deal with might be wrong, but our insistence of being right can only make things even more difficult. Sometimes we just have to let go of our wanting to be right in order to connect with others.
• Can you step off your pedestal long enough to acknowledge that being right might not matter if it only prolongs or exacerbates the problems? The pedestal of righteousness many school leaders and even classroom teachers stand on is quite high. Again our insistence of being right is sometimes not useful in every situation, so we must let it go.

How you approach potential verbal confrontations with others is an excellent indicator of your own leadership ability. According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs notoriously called things as he saw them. He was well-known by those he worked for, for stating the obvious and the truth no matter how hurtful or harmful it might be. His belittling of subordinates is legendary. Sure, he and his company were highly successful, and some others have argued that his "blunt and direct" way of speaking to others was the reason. I suspect it to be a bit more complicated than that. Sometimes, the important principle for leaders in schools and classrooms is to remember: "Being right isn't the most important thing."

Being a Courageous Educator and School Leader in an Era of Foolish Education Policy

“It takes courage to stand up to absurdity when all around you people remain comfortably seated. But if we need one more reason to do the right thing, consider this: The kids are watching us, deciding how to live their lives in part by how we've chosen to live ours." Alfie Kohn, "Encouraging Educator Courage," Education Week Online

In a post to Education Week entitled, "Encouraging Educator Courage" Alfie Kohn calls on educators to be courageous in the face of outrageous mandates and policies that are being foisted on their schools and districts in the name of education reform. While I would not encourage anyone to go as far as to put their jobs on the line, I do think we need to work to change mandates and policies with which we disagree, and that does not mean to quietly implement them without letting those who push them that we disagree.

Kohn points out one thing that courageous educators can do in the face of these mandates and policies; they can "dig deeper" which means asking the tough questions and not settling on just any answer that comes to us. We need to be critical of the reasons and evidence given to us just like would with any proposed idea or educational practice. It also means not accepting the arguments made from authority and power. If mandates and policy passed down to us are good for kids, then the burden of proof that that is so is on those proposing.

I also think Kohn is right when he says "too many educators have lost their capacity to be outraged by outrageous things. Handed foolish and destructive mandates, they respond by requesting guidance on how to implement them." Educators, like no time in the past, need to band together in the face of these destructive policies and make sure those who keep pushing these know our disagreement. We can't excuse ourselves from responsibility by simply saying, "We're just doing what we're told." As educators, we are committed to the children we serve, not those above.That's being a courageous educator and a 21st century education leader.  To read more of Alfie Kohn's post, check it our here: "Encouraging Educator Courage," Education Week Online

Unplugging from Technology and My Role as a School Leader----Educator

It is time once again to unplug from technology and my role as an educator. Last year, I posted that I was taking some time to completely unplug from technology and from my role as an educator ("Weekend Unplugged from Technology and from Being an Educator"). Tomorrow afternoon, I will again journey into the North Carolina mountains in order to participate in a 5-Day Insight meditation retreat entitled "Mindfulness: The Path to Freedom." At last year's retreat, I was fortunate to spend three days in meditation and mindfulness instruction with a spectacular teacher, Tempel Smith. This year, I will be spending five days in retreat at the Southern Dharma Retreat Center in Hot Springs, North Carolina focusing on Mindfulness meditation.

Southern Dharma Retreat Center

More of Southern Dharma Retreat Center

As I pointed out last year, I do not share this with any intention of evangelizing or trying to convince anyone of the religious merits of Buddhism or meditative religion. But my experiences in retreat last year were transformational. I am confident this year's retreat will offer an opportunity to reflect and look inward even more. This weekend, I have no access to the Web, which means no Twitter, no blogs, no Facebook, no email, no cell phones, and even no television. And, since it is a silent retreat, I will also be left to noise of my own thoughts, which is as it should be in contemplative exercises.

Hopefully, I will be able to share thoughts, reflections, and experiences with you upon my return next Wednesday. Have a great weekend, and take some time yourself to unplug before the madness of the new year begins.

3 Reasons Educators Need to Use Multiple Twitter Accounts

The widespread use of Twitter by educators is evident by the number of educators using it. Just following the Twitter stream during the course of a week, and you'll see several "chats" devoted to education and educational practice. Also, it's becoming increasingly hard to attend conferences where hashtags aren't part of the experience. For the most part, though, educators use Twitter in two ways:

1. To effectively promote the classroom, school or school district and inform the larger community
2. To foster and develop connections with other educators and experts to develop what is known as a Professional Learning Network, or PLN.

Because these two purposes for using Twitter are quite different, having multiple accounts set up for these dual purposes makes sense. For example, a school level principal can leverage more power from using Twitter by having an account or username for PLN purposes, and an account for PR and school promotional and informational purposes. In a word, this means establishing and maintaining each Twitter account for a specific purpose or function.

But why engage in using multiple Twitter accounts? Would it not be too problematic to maintain multiple accounts? Actually, it may be more problematic to use a single account. Here's some reasons to think about.

• Having multiple Twitter accounts each tied to very specific purposes is more efficient. A Twitter account dedicated to your school should be for the purpose of promoting school activity and for informing your public. Your personal-professional account should be used to foster connections with educators and for the development of your PLN. It is more efficient to use these accounts for the specific purposes for which they are established. Using a single Twitter account for PLN development and school PR functions means you aren't efficiently directing your posts to the intended audiences. Having accounts designed for both of these purposes means your posts are more efficient.
• Having Twitter accounts for specific purposes reduces the potential of confusing for whom or what the account is speaking. For example, posting an opinion about school policy or practice is fine for a personal-professional account, but would be less so from a school or district account. The voice of the account should be tied to its purpose, and using a school or organizational account to participate in a discussion of policy during a chat might give the appearance that you're providing the official stance of your organization. To keep this from happening, establish a personal-professional account and one for your classroom, school or district. As you Tweet, use the appropriate account and there should be little doubt regarding in what capacity you're speaking.
• Having Twitter accounts for specific purposes means being able to better manage your connections. For example, many parents might not be particularly interested in all your posts regarding theories of pedagogy and teaching, but they would like to follow the latest news about your school. To do this effectively, multiple Twitter accounts means having the ability to follow multiple sets of connections. You school account would be primarily connected to parents, students, and stakeholders interested in your school. Your PLN account would be connected to those professionals who are interested in improving professional practice. That way, you can more effectively direct your Tweets to the intended audience because you have better managed your connections.

As Twitter moves further and further into the mainstream, using it effectively and wisely as educators becomes more and more important. One important way to do this is to use multiple accounts, each set up for its own specific purpose. Having multiple Twitter accounts just makes sense. The same would seem to also apply to Facebook and other social media as well.

Posted with Blogsy

Empathetic Leadership: Sign of Being a Mature Leader

Are you facing the prospect of making a tough decision today or in the near future? Perhaps, you are having to deliver bad news to a staff member, or a parent, or student? There are certainly what we perceive to be easier ways to deliver that news. We could write a letter, send an email, or maybe call, but each of these seems to be perhaps a bit to heartless and cowardly in some ways.  Inside, we think, "I would not want to hear this news in that manner." If we choose the wrong means of delivering that news, the price we often pay is diminished trust and feelings of goodwill, which are no doubt important to our leadership and our organizations. 

Making tough decisions the wrong way can breed harsh feelings and a total lack of good will in an organization. What is needed in these kinds of situations is leadership with a heavy dose of empathy. When we deliver bad news to people, whether it’s that one of our employees failed to get a promotion or that their job is being cut, the news is going to be quite painful.  We can simply deliver the news in our “Tough SOB” persona, or we can do so with empathy. Even in the toughest of circumstances, it is possible to create trust and goodwill, if we exercise “leadership with empathy.”

As you make tough decisions, you might use “Just Like Me” thoughts suggested by Chade-Meng Tan in his book Search Inside Yourself: The Unexpected Path to Achieving Success, Happiness (And World Peace). As you face the prospect of delivering bad news, you might reflect on the following from Chade-Meng Tan's book:

Just Like Me
This person has a body and a mind, just
like me.
 
This person has feelings, emotions, and
thoughts, just like me.
 
This person has, at some point in his or
her life, been sad, disappointed, angry,
hurt, or confused, just like me.
 
This person has, in his or her life,
experienced physical and emotional
pain and suffering, just like me.
 
This person wishes to be healthy and 
loved, and to have fulfilling
relationships, just like me.
 
This person wishes to be happy, just like
me.

 
By reflecting on the reality that the person you are talking to is "Just Like Me" it becomes easier to be empathetic and understanding. Exercising empathy in the face to tough decision-making is definitely a sign of mature leadership. We can be tough, and not be an SOB.

Becoming a Competent 21st Century Leader of Innovation in Your School or District

“If a company is not nimble enough to rethink its strategy while it still has the assets and strength to change and adapt, it is doomed to wither or die.”  Working with Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman

Blockbuster, Borders, and Circuit City are examples of companies that failed to be “nimble enough” to rethink how they do business in the face of change around them. Each of these companies withered and died because they did not change and adapt while they still had the resources and strength to do so. Now public schools are in similar circumstances, and they might not have what it takes to survive.

In the end, Blockbuster did not see and react fast enough to streaming video. It failed to see the revolution in a new way to deliver video to customers because its leaders were perhaps not open to new ideas and new approaches to video delivery. Borders failed to respond in a timely manner to the reality of e-readers and e-books brought on by Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Perhaps their leaders still saw a bookstore in a physical location as the primary way people can and will purchase books. Circuit City failed to see, first of all, the "electronics superstore” model brought forth by Best Buy, and secondly, the inroads of online electronic retailers such as Amazon in their retail business. Perhaps their leadership failed to be open to new ideas on how to sell electronics to customers. Each of these businesses failed, not because they couldn't do what they had been doing well, but because leadership was shortsighted. Their leaders were not open to new ideas and novel approaches to do business until it was too late. 

Today, I fear that too many school leaders and their schools are following the path these business leaders and their companies trod. These school leaders are not open to new ideas and new approaches to teaching and learning. They still see standardization, testing, textbooks, and traditional schooling as the only means to educate all students, so they spend inordinate amounts of time and effort perfecting and trying to make these work. They are not open to entirely new ideas and novel approaches to teaching and learning, unless those new ideas of teaching and learning only allow their schools to continue operate as they always have. Then, they scratch their heads because too many of our kids still fail, drop out, or graduate unable to be productive. What they need is a mind that is open to the new and novel that will allow them see the things that could revolutionize teaching and learning.

What can school leaders do right now to demonstrate what Goleman calls the competence of "innovation" or the ability to be open to the novel and new? How can they demonstrate they are open and actively seeking new ideas and novel approaches to education? Borrowing from Goleman, here's 4 things school leaders can do to open up to innovation.

• “Seek out fresh ideas from a wide variety of sources.” In the information age this should not be a problem for school leaders. Fresh ideas and new sources of information are just a “Tweet” away for those school leaders willing to wade into social media. RSS feeds and RSS readers can help with the gathering of potential resources and ideas, and web tools like Diigo, Evernote, and Pocket can help with archiving and sharing. Finally, there are explosions of print materials available too. Personally, for me, the Kindle and Nook apps on my iPad make it possible for me to carry around 20 to 50 books and resources at one time, so that I can engage in a quick read at a moment's notice. If 21st century school leaders want to be open to innovation, they must seek out new ideas and resources wherever they can find them.
• “Entertain original solutions to problems.” In public schools, there’s still too much of “We've gotta do it this way because we've always done it this way.” Try to change something radically, and you are immediately put in your place with, "You can't do that." As 21st century school leaders we need to look for original, out-of-the-box solutions to our problems, instead of doing the same old kinds of things and hoping things turn out different. We see so little innovation in schools or districts often because no one looks for original solutions; they revamp and tweak old solutions. They either do what they always have done, or they do what everyone else is doing, both of which do not work. If 21st century school leaders want to be open to innovation, they must be alert and willing to engage in original solutions to the problems their schools or districts face.
• “Generate new ideas.” Twenty-first century school leaders need to purposefully find ways to generate new ideas. They can turn their schools into incubators of innovation by engaging staff, and themselves, in techniques and tools that foster original thinking and ideas. They can create a culture where “no-idea-is-too-dumb" and original thinking is welcomed. If 21st century school leaders want to foster original thinking and new ideas, they need to demand and accept originality, unconventionality, and non-conformity as a rule.
• “Take fresh perspectives and risks in their thinking.” School leaders who want to be open to innovation have to stop seeing education through the eyes of bureaucrats and policymakers and see education through the eyes of teachers, students and their parents. They need to do whatever is necessary to see teaching, learning, and schooling with the eyes of those engaged in those activities. And to take risks in thinking, they need to be willing to try things that no one else is trying and need to stop being risk-averse. If 21st century school leaders want to be open to innovation, they must view teaching and learning through new perspectives and be willing to take risks, and encourage others to do so as well.

If our public schools are ever going to be nimble enough to survive the massive changes occurring around them, they are going to need both school leaders and teachers willing to be open to “novel ideas and approaches” instead of simply trying to preserve things the way they are. 

3 Ways to Create a Climate of Possibility and Creativity in Our Schools

“The real role of leadership in education is not and should not be command and control. The real role of leadership is climate control; creating a climate of possibility, and if you do that, people will rise to it and achieve things you did not anticipate and couldn't have expected.” Sir Ken Robinson, TED Talk "How to Escape Education's Death Valley"

What is ultimately wrong with No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the Common Core State Standards? Each of these initiatives are a product of what Sir Ken Robinson calls mechanistic thinking. In mechanistic thinking, education is seen as an “industrial process” done to kids. You subject kids to this process, and at the end, you test them, then declare (or not declare) them college and career ready, educated, or whatever term you choose. As Robinson points out in his TED Talk "How to Escape Education's Death Valley," subjecting kids to these kinds initiatives and the standardization movement means millions of children have been left behind.

Why are so many children left behind in the current American system of education? The whole problem, according to Robinson, is simple: American education "contradicts 3 principles under which human life flourishes." These principles are: 1) Human beings are naturally different and diverse, 2) Human beings are naturally curious creatures, and 3) Human life is inherently creative. By contradicting these principles, we are losing students because the American system of education ignores the very things that allow humans to thrive and survive.

There's no denying that these fundamental principles of humanity are ignored in an education culture where standardization and conformity are elevated above principles of diversity, curiosity, and creativity. But what can we do, as school leaders, to create a "climate of possibility and creativity?" Perhaps we can begin to establish that climate by doing three things:

1. We can treat students as different and diverse, not as standardized unfinished products to which we "add value" through subjecting them to the same curriculum and the same tests. Education under No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the Common Core is all about conformity and standardization, not diversity. Each of the initiatives is about narrowing the curriculum so that we can test kids the same way, compare their scores, and boast or censure what we have done educationally. Instead of moving more and more toward standardization, we need to be moving to personalization. Under a personalized education system we capitalize on students' natural talents and abilities, not stifle them with standard curriculum and standardized testing. As 21st century school leaders we need to focus not on data entirely, but more on individual students. Drop out rates, proficiency rates, growth rates are not the center of what we should be doing as educators. Kids are.

2. We can recognize that human beings are naturally curious creatures, and create systems of education that value curiosity above all else. As Robinson points out, “Curiosity is the engine of achievement.” Yet in our efforts to treat our education system mechanistically, we stamp our curiosity with standardized curriculum and standardized testing. We treat “teaching” as a delivery system, when it should be treated as the "art of mentally stimulating, provoking, and engaging children in learning."  Robinson points out that the dominate culture in American education does not focus on teaching and learning, it focuses on testing. We have turned our schools into places where the culture is about compliance, not curiosity. As 21st century school leaders we need to make human curiosity central to our school cultures, not compliance.

3. We can recognize in our schools that human beings are inherently creative and turn them into places where creativity is valued. We spend our whole lives creating; it is a part of who we are as humans. Our role as educators should be to awaken this creativity and power it up, instead, we are too busy standardizing everything and stifling creativity. Our students should be engaged creatively, not engaged in test prep and testing at the expense of all else. As 21st century school leaders we need to create a school culture that values creativity above standardization and conformity.



Sir Ken Robinson's TED Talk: How to Escape Education's Death Valley


As long as policymakers at the national level, state level, and the district level continue to see education as this mechanistic, industrial process that is “done to kids” we're going to continue to have an education system that fails a large number of students. Changing our tests and our standards every few years is not going to create a climate of possibility and creativity in our schools. It only perpetuates the mechanistic system of education that has failed many of our kids for over a hundred years.

7 Principles to Guide Amazingly Simple School Improvement Plans and Planning

“The simple way isn’t always the easiest. Often it requires more time, more money, and more energy. It might require you to step on a few toes. But more times than not, it will lead to measurably better results.” Ken Segall, Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple’s Success

Tis the season, or almost the season, for schools to begin that process of “examining data, pondering goals, and discussing improvement” all in the service of our now established ritual of “School Improvement Planning.” It has become a religious ritual, with school leaders serving as the high priest, or priestess of improvement, hammering out details of plans on how to improve their school or district.

But in all this improvement planning, we sometimes forget important things we know are inherent about planning in general and school improvement planning specifically. In our efforts to be thorough and “good little administrators” we make school improvement planning much more complex than it should be, and we lose sight of what is important. Now, I am certainly not advocating the idea of proverbially flying by the seats of our pants when it comes to leading schools or districts. We know plans are important. But as we move into this Season of SIP, let’s keep some important principles of school improvement and common sense in mind.

1. Keep it simple. Sometimes in our zeal to plan for improvement, we make the school improvement planning process too complicated. For example, if it takes a masters degree to figure out how to complete your school improvement template, then that’s a problem. We should take a lesson from Apple with our school improvement plans. According to Ken Segall, “Everyone of Apple’s revolutions was born of the company’s devotion to Simplicity. Each new device created a new category or turned an existing category on its head---all because, as an old iMac ad put it, the technology was “simply amazing, and amazingly simple.” We can have school improvement plans and planning processes that are simple too. When anyone, educator or non-educator, looks at our plans, they should be “simply amazing, and amazingly simple” not some document no one reads because it is too complicated and needs interpretation.

2. You don’t have to wait to include it in your school improvement plan to improve it. I have actually been in schools and districts that refused to take on new initiatives simply because “it was not in their plan.” How’s that for being majorly short-sighted? Sometimes the best improvement ideas and improvements are those that come to us in the middle of the night, and if we wait until we can get it “into the school improvement plan” opportunities disappear. School improvement must be nimble and responsive, but when our school improvement processes become ponderous and rigid, how can we expect to be able to engage in any lasting and significant improvement? We need to be willing to sometimes “Make it so” to use the words of one of my Star Trek heroes.

3. Improvement can begin with the smallest things first. Schools become dysfunctional often due to a large number of small things that build up over time. Cultures get sick because of the small things that get neglected. If you really want to engage in school or district improvement, look to the small things first. While it might seem insignificant to you, I can bet the coffee you buy means something to someone. The lack of a pleasant greeting impacts someone when they walk into the building. We are sometimes blinded in our thinking by seeing improvement as the “big things,” when very often, changing all the little things make the big things better.

4. Focus on making things better for kids, not raising test scores, attendance rates, graduation rates or lowering drop out rates, suspensions etc. When you focus on numbers you can lose sight that everyone of those data-points represents kids. Data is important of course, but we should not be data-centric. We should be kid-centric. This means when planning improvement, there might be things that would improve test scores or lower drop out rates, but still not be good for kids. When your leadership focuses on numbers instead of kids, well, you get people who play games with numbers. Hence, you get Georgia testing scandals, DC testing scandals. Behind every non-proficient score you have a kid, not an object that we can “add-value” to.

5. Improvement should be continuous, and it is not always relegated to what you have on paper. Those who have an “improvement mindset” know that improvement is not something done every two or four years. It is something engaged in every single moment of every day. If you want to improve your school, you can begin in your classroom, office, or hallway, and keep improving things everyday.

6. Improvement is much easier if your school community strongly believes in what you are doing. This is a no-brainer. All that talk and effort about “stakeholder buy-in” is unnecessary if your school community culture is powered by common belief and support for what you are trying to do. You get your school community to believe in what you are doing by attending to their desires, needs, etc. When that is not possible, you work extra hard to get them to understand why, and while they may not agree, they can accept what you’re doing.

7. If you have to work too hard to convince your school community to buy into your plans, then maybe there’s something wrong with your plans. One of the grandest obstacles to school improvement are egos. School leaders with enormous egos sometimes come into school communities with grandiose plans that are more about them than the people they serve. Perhaps if that plan you have requires an extensive PR campaign, it isn't what your school or district needs. Just maybe it's what you need more than your schools need. Knowing when to back off with your plans, especially when its more about your ego than school improvement, is a key leadership trait.

As you and your school district move into this season of school improvement planning, taking Ken Segall’s advice when it comes to simplicity is important for those plans. He reminds us:

“By embracing the values of Simplicity, you will be the one to promote change, keep colleagues on course, and prove your value to the company (school, district) day by day.”

If your school improvement planning and plans are made ponderous and difficult  they do not have to be. These seven principles can guide your school or district to simplify and make your school improvement "simply amazing and amazingly simple."

School Leadership and 3 Acts of Integrity to Practice Today

“Integrity is acting for what is right. When we do this, we feel whole and uniquely powerful.” Gus Lee & Diane Elliott-Lee, Courage: The Backbone of Leadership

How many of you have had the rare opportunity to work with a leader that you would follow no matter where they led? I’m not referring to blind-followership. I am referring to following out of devotion because of who that leader is and what they are made of. Though I am sure many of us have had that pleasure, I can't help but ask myself now that I am in a leadership position, “What did that leader/manager possess that fostered this willingness to follow, not due to their super-ordinate position, but due to who they were?” I suspect one answer to that question is "Integrity."

What is integrity? According to Lee and Lee, integrity is "acting for what is right." It is adhering to inner principles. It is simply "doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do." It is leading from the "moral center within."

Lee and Lee, in their book Courage: The Backbone of Leadership, offer three acts of integrity.

1. Discerning right from wrong. Discerning right from wrong involves doing many things.

• It involves consulting others for advice or counsel, especially those who have demonstrated a level of wisdom greater than our own. These individuals can be experienced mentors; other experienced teachers, principals, superintendents, all offer us an opportunity to reflect with us about what is right and what is wrong. We all must have individuals to whom we can look for wise counsel. 
• In our discerning right from wrong, we must also honor our conscience. Taking actions that conflict with our internal compasses are a clear sign that those actions are the wrong actions. By honoring our conscience, we also stay true to ourselves as well. Being able to look at yourself in the mirror each morning is important for us as school leaders.
• In addition to honoring our conscience, we also need to be mindful so that our own personal needs and biases are not the sole basis for our actions and decisions. Lee and Lee call this “putting ourselves on the stand.” We must scrutinize our own motives because acting out of pure selfishness can lead us to wrong actions. Those motives might be in congruence with the right decision, but should not be our basis for action. Being mindful of our own "agenda" means not choosing it over what's in the best interest of others.

2. Acting for what is right regardless of risk to self. This is especially difficult in a politically charged environment like school districts and school systems. How many times have we witnessed decisions made in schools that were clearly not in the best interest of kids, but more in the interest of the adults in the school or district? Like the business environment, personal agendas become the drivers of decisions made, often at the expense of “rightness” and standing up for what is right is not the most advantageous, politically correct thing to do.

• If we are truly leaders of integrity, we are going to let others know what we think the right decision should be. Even more so, we as leaders are never going to demand others make decisions that conflict with their sense of right and wrong. Leaders of integrity foster integrity in others. They allow those they lead to express their reservations and problems with decisions being made. They are also open to being convinced that they can make wrong decisions too.
• We are also going to do what is right, not what will get us the next promotion. True leaders expect nothing less of those they lead as well. If we want an environment that prizes integrity, then we must admire that in those that follow us.

3. Teaching others from that act of integrity. By our demonstrations of integrity, we communicate to those who follow us that integrity is important. Doing the right thing is the right thing to do and we expect it out of all those we lead.

Lessons of integrity-failure abound in recent history. Enron, the financial meltdown that led to the Great Recession, and recent decisions made by our political leaders today are all examples of leadership decisions made without deference to integrity. In the end, to be a school leader of integrity means to courageously stand for what you believe to be right, and having the humility and courage to admit when you have been wrong, and expect no less from those we lead.

21st Century Perspective on Creating Innovative School Schedules

“If time is not fixed, there are lots of possibilities to make schooling more responsive to the individual needs of students and teachers and more economical to operate.” Frank Kelly, Ted McCain, and Ian Jukes, Teaching the Digital Generation: No More Cookie-Cuter High Schools

Why do high schools keep the same master schedule from one year to the next? One of the most difficult lessons I have learned as principal of an innovative high school is that there is no law or policy that prescribes what the school’s master schedule should look like from year-to-year. In fact, innovative high schools see schedule-flexibility as a must in order to fit the schedule to student needs, rather than fit students to a schedule.  This is my fourth year in my current position, and the master schedule has changed every year, and it looks like it will change again this year. Our master schedule is truly responsive to the individual needs of our students and our staff and that is how it should be.

Most high schools define themselves by their schedules. For example, a four-by-four high school defines itself by consistently having 4 periods of instruction a day in classes that last for one semester. In contrast, a traditional schedule high school defines itself as having 6 or 7, possibly 8, discrete periods of instruction a day that last for a calendar year. Then there’s blended models that incorporate aspects of both, as well as schedules that include some even shorter blocks of time for enrichment periods or advisory periods. The bottom line though is that most high schools do define themselves by their schedules, and that schedule is a fixed entity.  They see their schedule  as something that cannot be changed from year to year. But what if that schedule were seen as a flexible component that could be adapted to fit the needs of students from year to year? I submit that 21st century high school leaders view master schedules, not as a fixed entities to which students are fitted, but instead view schedules as just another tool to meet the needs of students.

For example, one of our commitments as a high school is to try to keep our class sizes down. In an age when individuals like Bill Gates argue that “Class size doesn't matter” my staff and I believe wholeheartedly it does matter. While it might not matter if your only yardsticks are test scores, we know from our personal experience the size of a class does matter when it comes to teachers being able to form significant relationships with the students they teach. These relationships are more than just about making our students get higher scores on the latest standardized tests. Smaller classes are about relationships and making our school a humane place to learn, instead of a factory that churns out “high-test scores” each year. And, to keep those class sizes down in the past several years, we have changed our schedule so that we do not have 35 students sitting in classrooms.

The bottom line about scheduling should be simple. School leaders need to change their perspective on schedules and master scheduling, and be flexible. Twenty-first century learning demands it. Instead of viewing the schedule as a fixed element that is not subject to change from year to year, why not view it as simply another tool in the tool chest to better meet the needs of your students? That’s being a 21st century leader in innovation.

Just to give you an idea on what we’re doing. Here’s our proposed schedule this year. I have to thank my guidance counselor for coming up with this one.

Period	Times
1st Period (Semester-Long Class?	7:40-9:10
2nd Period (Year-Long Class)	9:12-10:02
3rd Period (Year-Long Class)	10:04-10:54
4th Period (Year-Long Class)	10:56-11:46
Enrichment Period (Also advisory Period)	11:48-12:33
Lunch	12:33-1:05
5th Period (Semester-Long Class)	1:10-2:40

4 Principles for Designing 21st Century Learning Spaces

“School buildings must change because instruction must change. We need creative new designs that will support 21st century learning.” Frank S. Kelly, Ted McCain, and Ian Jukes, Teaching the Digital Generation: No More Cookie-Cutter High Schools

A great deal of the reform talk that we engage in focuses on changing how teaching and learning should change to better fit the needs of 21st century learners, but how much of that talk focuses on how we can better redesign our schools so that they better facilitate 21st century learning? Kelly, McCain, and Jukes point out one really sad fact about school construction in the 21st century:

“We are currently spending millions of dollars building new high schools that will last 40 years or more that are designed on ideas that date back to the early 1900s.”

In other words, the high schools we currently build are monuments to obsolescence, and instead of asking ourselves the critical questions about what should a high school in the 21st century should look like, we just keep building them the same way we always have. Then, we shake our heads with wonder when we can’t reform the kinds of teaching and learning that occurs in those schools. As Kelly, McCain, and Jukes so aptly point out, “We are victims of TTWWADI, or That’s the way we’ve always done it.”

What are some principles to guide us in designing 21st century learning spaces? Borrowing from Kelly, McCain, and Jukes, here’s some to consider.

• Instruction should drive construction. Instead of automatically assuming we need classrooms separated into subject-area departments, perhaps we need to ask what kinds of instruction and learning will be happening in those spaces. Too often, the people designing our schools are totally disconnected from those designing 21st century instructional and learning models. We need to design learning spaces that facilitate 21st century learning, not try to fit 21st century learning into 20th century Industrial Age learning spaces.
• Question everything. No preconceived notions about instruction and learning spaces are sacred. For example, do we have to have classrooms that place teachers front and center? Does learning have to even take place in classrooms? Do these learning places have to have the capacity to hold 25-30 students? Can they be larger or smaller, or do we need both? Does learning have to fall within a 9-month school calendar and during a 4-period, block-scheduled school day? In designing true 21st century learning spaces, we must question all of our preconceived notions about what these spaces should look like and how they are organized.
• Design learning spaces that capitalize on technology. Instead of fitting technology into existing classroom and school designs, how can we design classrooms and schools that capitalize on technology’s strengths? In other words, let's fit our schools to the technologies. For example, how does the potential for global connections and collaboration fit into high school design? Maybe we need a conference room with global video-conferencing capabilities. Designing learning spaces that fit the technologies means rethinking those spaces to capitalize on technology.
• Think about designing a school to fit the needs of 21st century learners rather than fitting 21st century learners into existing school designs. We know a great deal about how this digital generation learns and wants to learn, so why not incorporate those into our school designs? Don’t build lecture halls or classrooms with row after row of desks. Instead, build both places where students can engage in collaborative projects and places where they can explore and learn individually. Learning spaces should be designed to fit the needs of today's digital learners.

As Kelly, McCain and Jukes, point out, “What is currently lacking from the school design process is a way to set aside old assumptions about teaching and learning in order to allow people to develop new visions of the future.” School leaders are still designing and building schools not fundamentally different from schools designed and built in the Industrial Age; yet, we expect students to engage in Information Age activities. If we truly want instruction to change, we need schools and learning places designed for 21st century learning.

9 Characteristics of 21st Century Mindful School Leadership

“Mindfulness is simply noticing the way things are. By being mindful you can transform your life, your organization, and even your community. The first step is to transform yourself.” Maria Gonzalez, Mindful Leadership: The 9 Ways to Self-Awareness, Transforming Yourself, and Inspiring Others

“During difficult times,” writes Maria Gonzales, “anyone in a leadership position is scrutinized more closely. And it seems as if the demands of this new world order are beyond the experience of many who occupy leadership positions.” And, as Michael Carroll adds in Awake at Work, “Work with all its pressures and success and confusion, unfolds on its terms not ours, and we can be awake as if unfolds or we can resist---a choice we can make moment by moment for the rest of our lives.”

The pressures and challenges of leadership in 21st century schools and school districts is greater than it has ever been. Juggling dwindling financial resources, a myriad of new educational initiatives both state and federal, major curriculum restructuring, and the invasiveness of technology all make being a school leader today one of the most difficult jobs around. In midst of this confusion, the choice is simple: we can choose to be present, or as Gonzales points, “We can choose to be mindful." We can fight, resist, and ignore, and then find ourselves divorced from the reality that exists in our schools and school districts. Or, we can choose to practice being mindful, which brings us in tune with our reality. The answer for 21st century school leaders is cultivating what Gonzales calls “mindful leadership.”

But what does a mindful leader look like? Maria Gonzales’ “9 Ways of Being” provide an excellent portrait of “mindful leadership." Keep in mind though, it is through "mindfulness practices" that these characteristics are developed and fostered, which she also describes.

1. Mindful school leaders are present. Simply put, it means they exist in the now, in the present. They do not engage in undue worry about the past or the future. Their energies are directed toward the current moment. That does not mean school leaders do not plan. It means they do not obsess with those plans, and they are not so attached to those plans that nothing else matters.

2. Mindful school leaders are aware. They are aware of their own inner life. In other words, they are skillful in the art and science of emotional intelligence. They know themselves. They never feel themselves overtaken and blindsided by their own emotions. Mindful school leaders know who they are, inside and out, and are not deluded into thinking more of themselves than they should.

3. Mindful school leaders are calm. They don’t panic. They face trying circumstances with control. Mindful school leaders act with centeredness and authenticity at all times. Their calmness is a natural part of who they are.

4. Mindful school leaders are focused. They “channel resources to accomplish priorities.” They concentrate on what’s important. Mindful school leaders know what's important and they zero in on that.

5. Mindful school leaders are clear. It is this clarity of mind that makes it possible to make the best decisions. They understand their own motivations and why they do what they do. They, as Gonazales aptly points out, “know what is important.” Mindful school leaders exhibit a clarity of mind that fosters quality decision-making.

6. Mindful school leaders are equanimous. This is the ability to accept things as they are, not in the spirit of resignation, but simply to be at peace with reality. They do not spend time fighting fruitless battles. They do not engage in unrealistic expectations. Mindful school leaders are at peace with their reality.

7. Mindful school leaders are positive. They are a “positive force” in their schools or school districts. They understand leadership means serving others. Because of their positivity and service to others, they inspire those around them. Mindful school leaders act and live in affirmation and are an inspiration to those they serve.

8. Mindful school leaders are compassionate. They deeply care those around them. They know and understand and engage in self-compassion too, because taking care of self is important too. Mindful school leaders act with compassion, not in self-service and self-promotion.

9. Mindful school leaders are impeccable. As Gonzales points out, they aren't perfect, but mindful leaders act with integrity, honesty, and courage. They accept responsibility for what they do and do not blame others for honest mistakes. Mindful school leaders always act with integrity, honesty and courage when leading their schools or districts.



In the education tumult of the 21st century, School leaders, more than anyone, need to be mindful. The challenges we face are only increasing, not lessening. As Maria Gonzales states, “Mindfulness can help leaders remain focused on what really matters to them and to their companies and stakeholders.” I submit that mindfulness helps school leaders remain focused on what it really important: our students.

Note: To learn more about fostering "mindful leadership" I suggest Maria Gonzales' straightforward, non-religious treatment of the topic  in her book, Mindful Leadership: The 9 Ways to Self-Awareness, Transforming Yourself, and Inspiring Others.

3 Steps to Leveraging the Power of Technology to Disrupt Your School or District

“When people adopt technology, they do old things in new ways. When people internalize technology, they find new things to do.” James McQuivey, Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation

James McQuivey’s book, Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation, makes very clear  the difference between businesses who adopt technology versus those who internalize it. He states, “When companies adopt new technology, they do old things in new ways. When companies internalize technology, they find entirely new---disruptive---things to do.” In other words, adopting technology means using technology to do the same old things we've always done. Internalizing it means using technology to do the new and novel. It means disrupting how we currently do things.



Reflecting on McQuivey’s distinctions between technology adoption and technology internalization, I could think of countless examples of technology-adopting in our schools.

• A teacher using presentation software to illustrate a class lesson or lecture.
• A student using word-processing software to type a paper rather than hand-write it.
• A teacher having students use the web to research the definitions for important terms in a unit of study.
• A student using a tablet to read a novel using e-reader software.
• A teacher using a interactive board to illustrate the main points in a lesson.
• A teacher showing students a YouTube video to illustrate a main point in content.
• A principal using Twitter or Facebook to make announcements.
• A teacher recording a podcast or vodcast of a lecture, and posting it on the web and assigning it to students to review as homework.

Each of these activities are considered technology adoption because the students and educators are engaged in a behavior or activity that is not fundamentally changed by the use of technology. The technology simply helps them do what they have always done.

These examples of technology adoption are certainly acceptable if all we want to do maintain the same kinds of learning and teaching we've always had, but we are not leveraging the power of technology in these cases to totally “disrupt the teaching and learning” in our schools, and if we want to move to 21st century models of teaching and learning, we must do just that.

Then the next question is, what steps can we take to leverage the disruptive power of technology in our schools? McQuivey’s offers some suggestions for businesses that can be modified to guide us in developing steps focused on the needs of schools,so we can leverage technology's disruptive power.

• Change the mindset about technology and education. As McQuivey points out, “We need to adopt a ‘digital disruptor’ mindset.” What that means in practical terms is we fundamentally change how we view opportunity and technology. Instead of viewing technology as means to help us do teaching and learning as we have done, we ask the question: How can technology help us engage in new kinds of teaching and learning? The answer to that question will lead us to new ways of doing school. 
• Behave like a digital disruptor. As McQuivey points out, you start this process by “innovating the adjacent possible” not by totally reinventing the whole. To innovate the adjacent possible in education we can begin by identifying what our students needs are. Then, we generate and choose the one or two things we can do using the technologies and resources we have or can obtain to meet those needs. To modify a phrase McQuivey uses: “We need to innovate in the direction of our students’ needs.” Innovation for innovation sake is never a good idea. We need to innovate by always looking to the needs of our students.
• Disrupt your school or district now. Begin by revising policies and practices that inhibit disruption, hence innovation. For example, if requesting and obtaining technologies and resources are hampered by cumbersome requisition processes, simplify. If school district practices prevents teachers from experimentation and risk-taking, change them. If there are barriers that keep people isolated and unable to share practice and ideas, tear them down. Begin disruption by establishing a team of disruptors who are willing to push to the edges of innovation. All of these measures will go a long way in disrupting your school or district.

If technology has had little or no impact on teaching and learning in your school or district, then perhaps the issue is your school or district has only adopted technology not internalized it. We need to leverage the power of technology to disrupt what happens in our schools’ classrooms. We, as 21st century school leaders, need to become leaders of digital disruption to fundamentally change how we do school.

Note: While James McQuivey's book offers a fascinating look at practice things business can do leverage the power of technology and the disruptor mindset, it has a lot to say that is directly applicable to our schools too. His examples of disruption in business and the steps he provides can inform our efforts to make technology internalization happen.

5 Top Blog Posts of All Time on the 21st Century Principal

One interesting ability of blogging is the ability to see which posts have gotten the most views over time. There is obviously a great deal that can be learned from this kind of data. For example, you can see the kinds of content readers most want to see. What's interesting to me is that a post I did over two years ago is still the most popular post on this blog. Here's the Current Top 5 21st Century Principal Blog Posts.

1. Top iPad Apps for School Administrators. This list has been revised and changed over time, and I must confess I do no use all of these apps any longer due to better apps being developed. Evernote and Dropbox are still at the top of my list of iPad apps, though I would add Google Drive, Amazon Cloud Drive, and iCloud as other cloud storage options I now use. Evernote is still going strong as my iPad note taking app, however. It has only gotten better since this original post.I don't use Docs-to-Go any longer. It has been replaced by Google Drive. My favorite E-Reader is still Amazon's Kindle, mostly because that is where all my books reside. My RSS reader of choice for the iPad is now Mr. Reader. I published an updated revised List of Top iPad Apps for Administrators in January of this year. However, this list has moved to a more generic app listing.

2. 10 Things a School Leader Does to Kill a Teacher's Enthusiasm for Technology. This post was actually inspired by the teacher in me. Over my 16 years in the classroom, these were the kinds of things I witnessed that made me want to give up efforts to engage in using technology in my classroom. Administrators have a powerful role in fostering technology use, and their actions and policy can tank excitement quickly.

3.  Top 10 Signs Your School Is Caught in a Time Warp: List for School Leaders. I can't remember the inspiration for this post, except for the quote at the beginning. Our schools are still stuck in the past. Many of those 10 signs are still relevant, however, I would perhaps add a two others.

• Technology is purchased for bragging purposes, not for instructional potential.
• There's still talk of textbook adoptions.

4. 5 Indications Your Leadership Is Obsolete for 21st Century Schools. This post was more direct than number 3. I attempted to directly state those actions and proclivities of school leaders that actually prevent schools from moving to 21st century learning models. Leadership requires action, and many of the actions described in this list are in direct opposition to 21st century learning and teaching.

5. 6 Key Personal Learning Network Literacies Every Educator Needs. This post attempted to capture those things that every educator needs to make the most of Personal Learning Networks. Being able to use social media to foster professional learning is a key 21st century educator competency. We need to be able to engage in Personal Learning Networks, not only because they are efficient and powerful, but because our students learn that way.

That's it. The Top 5 21st Century Principal Posts. Blogging has been and continues to be an adventure in learning and sharing.