Want Innovation? Start with the Teachers in Your School Instead of Experts on the Outside

"The main lesson to draw from the birth of computers is that innovation is usually a group effort, involving collaboration between visionaries and engineers, and that creativity comes from drawing on many sources. Only in storybooks do inventions come like a thunderbolt, or a lightbulb popping out of the head of a lone individual in a basement or garret or garage" Walter Isaacson, The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution

Besides the fact that there is little really innovative and new about them, the real problem with the heavy-handed reform strategies and tactics imposed from above, like the imposition of the Common Core, Merit Pay, or value-added teacher evaluations, is that their development and implementation failed and continues to fail to be collaborative endeavors. As Isaacson points out, the birth of an innovation is usually a group effort between those who have the vision and the engineers. In each of these examples, the true "teaching and learning engineers" in the individual schools are left out of the innovation loop. Sure, token teachers are often asked to serve on the committees, but there are also "experts," researchers, and politicians too, who often take so much control of the process, that the real engineers are left out.

I want to propose a new idea that follows more closely what Isaacson describes. I want to move innovation from meeting rooms, conference rooms, and think tanks totally outside the school. I want to move innovation back to the level of the school where the visionaries and teaching-learning engineers are. Engage in innovation at the school level, instead of searching for magic snake oil that might or might not exist out there somewhere. Engage staff at the school level in "innovation collaboration" and hackerism.

But I suspect the "experts" won't go away quietly. After all, too often their job is simply to sell their wares, which means marketing and creating a "need" where one did not exist before. In education, there's still this underlying belief that "experts" from the outside can walk into a school or district, conduct some professional development, provide some consulting services, and then collect their hefty professional fees, and "Presto!" innovation happens. They then move on to the next school district, like some medicine man, peddling their wares once again. In the end, this type of "imposition-of-innovation-from-above" (or outside) often leaves schools with mediocre results and a little less professional development money in their pockets. Politicians, school leaders, and teachers are guilty of taking on this medicine man role too, which is very often more about their own ambitions, prestige, and financial wealth than truly helping a school engage in innovation and ultimately help children.

Why do schools continue to engage in this "medicine man" style of professional development and innovation seeking? Besides the fact that is much easier seek innovation from without than try to engage your school or district in becoming innovative, I would also stress that the marketing of these medicine men, educating consultants, professional development experts is often more effective than their products or wares, but that is another blog post entirely.

Instead, if we truly want to innovate, I suggest we approach it the hacker and geek way. Let's involve the engineers a great deal more and the medicine men a little less. Let's engage in innovation at the school level with the teaching and learning "engineers" there. They are the ones who know everything about the "context" of that school. Very seldom will any neatly packaged product or "innovation" being sold by "experts" and educational entrepreneurs will work as advertised anyway. That's why many schools have these piles of educational materials sitting in their book rooms and media centers gathering dust. These all were "bottles of the latest elixir" promised to cure all that ailed that particular school at the time it was purchased.

Experts and professional development consultants can offer "sources of ideas," but their outside status places them in a position of not being able to fully understand that school's issues no matter how much "data" we feed to them. If they do claim to sell "research-based" wares, we should demand that they provide specific, independent, and valid research studies that examined the effectiveness of their product, not some vague or generic studies. If they can't provide them, send them packing. In education, we don't have a federal or state organization approving the effectiveness of these products, methods, or programs, so we have to take that on ourselves. Let's listen a little less to their very often unsubstantiated promises and engage our own teachers in our own schools with the task of solving the problems. Let's create cultures of innovation and hackerism in our schools that can make true and lasting innovation happen.

Welcoming Innovative Disruption: Embracing Those Who Ask the Tough Questions

"The people who ask questions that no one else is asking are the inventors and entrepreneurs and leaders who will create the next wave of innovative disruptions." Jensen, Bill. Disrupt! Think Epic. Be Epic.: 25 Successful Habits For An Extremely Disruptive World

Often, as we work within the education system, we are actually discouraged from asking tough questions. Questioning is often seen as disrespectful and not being a team-player. The teacher at the back of our staff meetings who begins to ask question after question on some new initiative the school is preparing to roll out, is seen as a "naysayer" and a "supporter of the status quo." These are sometimes apt labels for these individuals, but sometimes, the questions being asked need to be asked. They need to be listened to, and they need to be answered carefully.

Certainly, it is possible that the one asking the questions about our new initiative and project just want to sabotage our plans as school leaders. But can we really take that chance? Especially, if as Bill Jensen points out, that these are often the inventors, entrepreneurs, and leaders who create innovative disruptions that turn our schools and the educational system upside down?

As school leaders, those who ask tough questions might or might not have ulterior motives, but if we really want to be innovative, we perhaps need to listen rather than dismiss them. As Jensen points out, those who wish to be proactive "disrupters" of our organizations need to join in and "actively question every system, structure, and rule" placed before us. This is embracing the potential of "disruptive innovation in our schools."

Philosophical Ramblings About Getting an EdD Degree

In 2013, I embarked on a journey. I began working on my EdD degree in educational leadership. There are many reasons why one would take on such a monumental task. Some do so for career advancement, and others do so for career changes. My reasons for doing so have been a bit more complex, often including many of these, but they have actually changed over time. Personally, I have treasured the intellectual challenge it has brought me. Many would perhaps argue that doctoral degrees should have an immediate practical application, but I would disagree; it should disturb us profoundly. I would argue that my experience of doctoral education has forced me to re-examine everything I believed to be true about myself as an educator and human being. It has in many ways placed everything I held to be true about the educational field in question. To me that is the practical application of my doctoral education.I now savor more than ever the intellectual side of our enterprise as public educators. I enjoy questioning myself and the entire discipline of education, and I have had some of my beliefs about education reinforced. I’ve had many of my beliefs placed in doubt, and I have formulated some new beliefs based on all that I’ve learned and read. But even these new beliefs are subject to change as experience, reading, and thought changes. That’s where my disturbance lies: everything for me is tentative.
Ultimately, doctoral education has changed my work. Principals can get into “automatic-pilot-mode” where they simply make decisions and deal with issues, hardly ever taking time to examine deeper issues and problems. Obviously, when crisis decisions arise, there’s little time to analyze and engage in deeper thinking, but those everyday decisions we make, such as how to address a disciplinary issue, or how to make suggested improvements to a colleague, do allow for time to think and analyze rather than following a script. That’s the practical application of much of my reading, writing and intellectual thought fostered by my doctoral work. I practically every day find myself looking to the deeper side of what I do and that makes for some amazing reflection.
Doctoral work is rewarding. It becomes particularly rewarding if it disturbs your own beliefs and thoughts about education and life, as mine has done. I became an English teacher years ago because I treasured the engagement of my own intellect with reading and writing. Literature that is worth its weight does that: it engages the intellect and leaves you disturbed. Just reading and writing inside your comfort zone hardly leads to intellectual growth. I that is one big practical application of my doctoral program studies. I am disturbed (not mentally mind you, though some would perhaps disagree) and will probably remain so for the rest of my life. The disturbance I feel is simply the realization that perhaps I did not have all this figured out after all, nor will I ever. Those who realize this, I contend, are perhaps better educators. There are far too many education reformers, educators, policymakers, politicians, corporate leaders who think they have figured it out. They haven’t.
Knowledge is liberating in many ways, and it can liberate you as well from thinking you know for sure how to teach, or how to lead, which means you’re more free and open to creativity and innovation. Pursuit of education is perhaps liberation in more ways than we think.

3 Principles for Creating a Culture of Creativity in Schools to Unleash Technological Innovation

"While in school, we are often educated into believing that we must succeed---that mistakes should be avoided. But to be successful, we need to learn how to fail and how to respond to failure. What we call failure is really a learning process." Bill Capodagli and Lynn Jackson, Innovate the Pixar Way: Business Lessons from the World's Most Creative Playground

In today's standardized, testing, and accountability climate, there are major penalties imposed on those who fail. For example, in some states, students who "fail" standardized tests are branded failures by being held back a grade with retention policies that tell students, "Failure is not an option." In other states, teachers whose students don't demonstrate "success" by reaching pre-determined levels of "growth"on standardized tests, find themselves labeled "In Need of Improvement," which might as well be a "Scarlet Letter of Failure" they are forced to wear across their chests until they prove themselves. Finally, in other states, there is the practice of labeling entire schools with letter grades A-F, which is just another device to make sure those who fail suffer the consequences of being a failure. Clearly in our current education system, failure is something to run from and avoid. "Failure is not an option" is the mantra, yet, in today's super-charged, technology climate, failure is exactly what we need. Our mantra should be "Fail early and often" if we want to move forward with innovation. If failure is avoided, so is risk and exploration, two primary ingredients for a culture of creativity within a school, and it is that creativity that drives the innovation necessary to make the most of technology.

If school leaders want to capitalize on what technology has to offer their schools, they must create schools where "failing towards success" happens as rule, and taking risks and exploration is expected. For, as Capodagli and Jackson point out,

"Failing forward is about learning from our mistakes---examining failures and moving beyond them to success." 

In the accountability and audit culture, any failure is treated almost as a sin for which there is no forgiveness.

What then is a school leader to do, to create the kind of culture of creativity that celebrates failure as part of success and creativity? Here's 3 principles adapted from Pixar's Ed Catmull's book, Creativity, Inc. Pixar has demonstrated what a culture of creativity looks like.

1. Remember that "Ideas come from people. Therefore people are more important than ideas." Intuitively, most school administrators begin by focusing on the technology. They assess: What technology do we have, and what technology can we get? They even use the number of smart boards and computers in their buildings to gauge technological progress. That's not how it should be. You can have all the tech toys in the world in your building, but if no one is using them, they might as well be trophies sitting on a shelf. As Catmull points out, you have to begin by focusing on people. You do this by finding "good people" and then supporting them. You develop them, and you give them "running room" to try the new. The same is true with both innovation and technology. Focus on the people first, not the technology.

2. Foster the idea that "mistakes are the inevitable consequences of doing something new" and "a positive understanding of failure." Creating a school climate where mistakes are an accepted part of trying the new is especially challenging in a an educational environment that places a premium on holding all "accountable" for failure by beating them over the head with bad ratings and grades. Too many accountability systems are scapegoat-seeking tools for hunting down and getting rid of the culprits who caused "failure to happen" instead of providing solid feedback that leads to success. It is this that creates a "fear-based" climate where no teacher or administrator is going to step out of safe territory and make great things happen with technology.

3. Avoid allowing your school or district to become infected with the desire to "just play it safe." According to Catmull,

"Even though copying what's come before is a guaranteed path to mediocrity, it appears to be a safe choice, and the desire to be safe---to succeed with minimal risk---can infect not just individuals but entire companies."

There are schools and school districts all around us infected with this "be-safe" virus. They are inflexible and rigid, and the minute a teacher dares step to the edge of innovation, the school of system slaps them back in line. The early reaction of school districts towards cell phones and social media are a great example of this. When school leaders focus on safety alone, they move to risk-minimization mode, which kills creativity and innovation, the very things needed to capitalize on technology. You can recognize a school system that values safety at the expense of all else when they bring technology into their schools. How? It is simply used to do what they've always done. Smart boards become overhead projectors. The Internet becomes a massive online library. Social media becomes just another announcement system. You can't possibly play it entirely safe with technology and expect innovation and creativity.

The challenge then for today's school leader is how do you make it safe for innovation and creativity in a climate that only values success and punishes failure? How do we move our schools, districts, students, parents, and teachers beyond the thinking that "failure is not an option" so they can take risks and explore the edges of innovation with technology? We can begin doing that by focusing on our people instead of counting smartboards and computers. We can make mistake-making accepted step in the path to innovation and creativity. Finally, we need to inoculate ourselves against the "play-it-safe" virus and make risk-taking acceptable. We can't just copy what someone else is doing and call it innovation. We need to unleash creativity by taking Catmull's advice by "loosening the controls, accepting risk, trust our colleagues, work to clear the path for them, and pay attention to anything that creates fear." 

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. 

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."

More on Leadership and Why I'm Not Upgrading to Windows 8

Because one of my readers took the time to post a thoughtful comment to my post entitled "5 Reasons I am Not Upgrading to Windows 8 at This Time," I felt the need to clarify my reasoning as to why a Windows 8 upgrade is not in my picture. Because my explanation is longer than the comment-reply feature can handle, I include it here.

You have my apologies for your disappointing experience with this post, but my target for this post was clearly Windows 8 and my own experience and decision not to upgrade at this time, because everything I read about the new OS indicates that it would be a poor purchase decision for me. Like everyone else, before I spend my money on devices and new operating systems, I turn to the web for information, and in this case I did. Like the web link I included in the original post, article after article indicated to me that upgrading to Windows 8 with my current devices would not be a wise decision. All of the information I have says it was designed for "touchscreen" devices, and that those who purchased it, and were trying to use the OS with a mouse and keyboard, were finding the experience miserable at best. In the interest of fairness though, I am going to change the title of that post slightly to simply read, “5 Reasons I’m Not Upgrading to Windows 8 at This Time,” and I will do a follow up post listing all the resources that led me to make that decision not to upgrade.

It is true, I have not physically tried Windows 8, but that does not mean I can't use the experiences of others to make a judgment on whether the OS it right for me. All consumers do this. I have no testing budget for the software and hardware I describe on this blog, so that means, like any consumer, I can't just rush out and buy every new OS, software platform, or device that comes along "and try it for the sake of being a good leader."  I can and will continue to share both my experiences, and the resources that I can to help others make decisions best for their particular circumstances. In this case, the best decision I can make, with the information I have, is not to upgrade to Windows 8 at this time.

As I mentioned in the above post, I also ran the compatibility utility available from Microsoft as well, and there were way too many "driver incompatibilities" as well. The last time I did an operating system upgrade, I spent an entire day finding compatible drivers. My decision right now is based on the fact that I would have to spend a great deal of time trying find compatible drivers for things like my laptop’s Bluetooth interface, DVD burner, and several other onboard hardware devices.  There were just too many devices in the list that would force me to search the web for Windows 8 compatible devices, and that does not weigh to well against the minimal gains I might get from upgrading. Perhaps in a few months, when Microsoft has had time to work out the bugs, I can reconsider, but my laptop is running smoothly right now. If Microsoft wants me to upgrade, it is up to them to create a product that doesn't change that, and part of that is ensuring that the transition to their new products is a smooth one.

As for the need for a "consistent experience across Windows devices"? I don't need that experience, because I only have one device with Windows, my laptop.  I have recently purchased three Android tablet and e-reader devices, so I am very unlikely to purchase a Windows tablet. I also do not have plans to purchase a Windows phone. This means I have no “Windows devices on which to have a consistent experience,” so that selling point does not work for me.

Anyone can clearly see from my blog that I am willing to try new and different devices and software systems, so you could hardly accuse me of advocating for "stagnation." Choosing not to upgrade to Windows 8 at this time and sharing that decision with my readers does not mean that I am trying to advocate for anything other than informing those who might be in my same situation, that a Windows 8 upgrade might not be in their best interest.

I would love to try Windows 8, but unfortunately, because of the way Microsoft has engineered this new operating system, for me to do so, I would have to purchase a new device to fully experience it the way designers intended, and I don’t have the kind of resources to rush out and purchase a new tablet or a touchscreen computer to sample that experience.

Does any of this mean I will not upgrade in the future? No, but if I do, it will be because the software meets my needs, not because it is latest thing out there. From my perspective, leadership isn't about avoiding stagnation; those who do so, often find themselves only trendy and ineffective leaders who pursue the flavor of the week. Leadership for me is about making wise decisions using the best available information out there, and in this case, at this time, the best information is telling me to avoid a Windows 8 Upgrade at this time.

21st Century School Leader’s Guide to Creative and Innovative Schools

“Innovation? We don’t want no stinking innovation,” would perhaps accurately describe many of our educational institutions, including K-12 public education organizations. We’ve all worked in those schools and districts where rules, policies, processes, and procedures mattered more than the people. These same schools literally fight to preserve “the way we do things” to the point of exterminating any thoughts of doing things differently. Then we wonder why our particular schools or districts fail to be innovative.

According to Ken Segall in Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple’s Success, “When process is king, ideas will never be.” Segall’s assertion is that Apple’s success is based on a company culture where creativity is recognized as vital to the organization. While I recognize the limitations of forcing business thinking on a for-purpose organization like public schools, it does not stop me from asking the question, “Why can’t we create schools where people and ideas matter more than rules, policies and procedures?”


According to Segall, the problem most companies face is that “their processes have become so institutionalized, they’re incapable of altering their own behavior---even if the benefits of the change are staring them right in the face.” As a 20-plus year veteran educator, I can't count how many times have I run head-on into policy, procedures, and rules when wanting to try something innovative and new. These “institutionalized ways of doing things” were thrown into my face by well-meaning administrators and colleagues, but the effects were, “You’re out of line to suggest such things, so get with the program."

Over the course of my career, this “institutionalized-barrier to innovation and ideas” has manifested itself many times, and over the course of years, if you're like me, you eventually become tired of fighting the system, so you just do what you're told, how you’re told to do it. You then pass this same institutionalized-thinking to your students with the admonition that we're told to do it this way, so get used to it. In the end, nothing is changed, because the school culture is one where innovation and new ideas are quickly stifled.


But things do not have to be that way. As Ken Segall states:

“You can build an organization that recognizes the needs of creativity. You can become a steward of creative thinking and become its greatest advocate. You can become skilled in recognizing when a process is more likely to kill a good idea than it is to promote it.”

There is hope that 21st century school leaders can foster in their schools and districts the kinds of cultures that value and cultivate creativity and new ideas. Our schools can become the kinds of institutions that make creativity and innovation a priority, which is vital to their survival as 21st century institutions.

What then can we do as school leaders today to perhaps begin to shape our schools and districts into cultures where ideas and innovation really matter more than rules, policies, processes and procedures? Perhaps here's some starting points for answers to that question.

• Audit your school culture with your entire staff and see where your school or district lies within the continuum of institutionalized creativity and innovation. Use surveys, informal conversations with all stakeholders, and intense self reflection as your tools to find out if “Your school is one where processes and procedures matter more than creativity and new ideas." This is an attempt at honest reflection and data gathering, but keep it simple. It will start the conversation about how your school and district really values creativity and innovation. Schools that have heavily institutionalized barriers to creativity and innovation will find those barriers rather quickly, but they will be harder to modify or dismantle. Those schools that have more subtle blocks to creativity and innovation will have a more difficult time finding those issues, but might have a stronger basis to start with. Simple, honest, self-reflection is the starting point of finding whether your school or district stifles creativity or innovation or whether it values it.
• Once the institutionalized barriers to innovation and creativity have been identified, look for ways to change, modify, work-around, or remove those barriers. I am not speaking of violating policies or breaking laws. As a school leader in 21st century schools or districts, we must become skilled at dealing effectively with those things within, and without, our organizations that prevent innovative and creative thinking. Sometimes, changing a policy or procedure is as simple as re-writing it. Other times, we may have to fight before school boards, legislatures, and politicians to change those onerous regulations that are major stumbling blocks to innovations. Other times, we can find ways around these barriers that allow for the creativity and innovation we seek without breaking the law or violating policy. School leaders have to have to courage to challenge the status quo, and of course the graciousness to realize when they’ve lost, and determine to fight the battle again on another day. Those barriers preventing teachers from being creative need to be dealt with, and courageous 21st century school leaders do just that.
• Become the caretaker of innovation and creativity in your school or district. This means keeping an eye out for innovative solutions and ideas. It means recognizing those when they happen and making sure those innovations and creative ideas are carefully cultivated and protected. It means being ever vigilant that creativity and innovation are valued within your school organization and that institutionalized practice does not hinder these things.

It has been pointed out many times that schools and school districts are notoriously resistant to change. Creativity and innovation are often not valued and many schools and school districts actively stifle those things. It is important that 21st century school leaders do not find themselves on the side that protects rules, policies, and procedures at the expense of people and ideas. True 21st century leadership begins when there's a willingness and courage enough to be advocates for innovation and creativity.