As the Test Turns

As the Test Turns

By Christina Larson

Principal

South Montgomery Community School Corporation

Doctoral Student

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

&

Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

Do the benefits of an excruciatingly long statewide assessment really offset the loss of comparable hours of instruction? Have we veered from a once-responsible path, hitting head-on, an educational road sign that denotes, “Wrong Way”?

After the statewide release of the length of time that would be needed for this year’s ISTEP+ Part 1 and ISTEP+ Part 2, educators learned that our students would be faced with, at our count, roughly twenty hours of ISTEP + assessments and preparation. 

Governor Pence showed leadership this week (not to mention political savvy) by issuing an Executive Order to halt all that nonsense. Though we have the upmost respect for State Superintendent Glenda Ritz and her team at IDOE, something needed to happen, and they didn’t appear to be changing course.

The Best of Daytime Drama: As the Test Turns.

This brings up a conversation that Hoosiers, and all across America, need to have:  Do we really want to subject our elementary students to an assessment that runs as long or longer than many State Bar Exams, in order to determine if schools are doing a good job teaching what the tests measure?  Can we develop other ways to ensure excellence in education without sapping our children’s time, talent, and interest in school?

Possibly the more important question may be, “Are these assessments really helping students to become College and Career Ready?”  They certainly do not focus on authentic learning and real-world problems. If we listen to our friends in business and industry who will hire our graduates, they are asking us to prepare employees who are problem solvers and collaborators. 

What ever became of the push for the 21^st Century Skills of creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking?  There certainly is a small glimmer of their inclusion when Indiana included Speaking and Listening Skills which addressed collaboration, presentation, and reciprocal communication with others. Unfortunately, these critical skills are left unassessed in ISTEP+, and in the Instructional and Assessment Guidance Documents for 2014-15 that is prepared by the Department of Education, teachers are encouraged to only allocate 5 to 10 percent of their instructional time in this area.  With high-stakes testing now reaching an all-time high, we’re pushing aside what makes schools, teaching, and learning great – and transferrable.

Pink (2006) and Zhao (2015, 2012) aptly suggested the United States is best known for leading innovation and entrepreneurship.  Yet as other countries are moving toward systems that foster creativity, we are moving farther away. Our assessment system is now forcing teachers to focus on only what can only be measured at lower levels of inquiry, thus turning what could be a liberating learning experience, into response-driven regurgitation.    

Our world is changing before our eyes. We understand the need for educating our children to be successful in a global community and economy.  Yet, with our current focus on assessment, are we unintentionally creating a generation of followers who will have trouble serving as leaders?

Obviously, this article presents more questions than answers, yet certainly questions that merit discussion as this turn-of-events continues.  We believe that the time is now in Indiana, as well as across the country, to change course and avoid future collisions. 

Governor Pence reacted quickly to the outlandish double-timing of this year’s assessment schedule, but what will be his next move?  Perhaps this will be the defining moment where our lawmakers and state officials will recognize the impact of their agendas and look for another way to ensure quality schools without further reducing time for children to learn. 

Our next few miles of travel will impact us, most assuredly.

References

Pink, D. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: The Penguin Group.

Zhao, Y. (2015, January 22). China encourages college students to suspend study and become entrepreneurs and innovators. Creative, Entrepreneurial, and Global: 21^st Century Education. Retrieved at http://zhaolearning.com/2015/01/22/china-encourages-college-students-to-suspend-study-and-become-entrepreneurs-and-innovators/

Zhao, Y. (2012). World-class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

________________________________________________________ 

Christina Larson and Ryan Donlan are firm believers in the need to upsize the teaching and learning, while right-sizing the amount of standardized testing, in America’s schools.  If you would like to talk with them, or even debate a point or two, please do not hesitate to contact them at clarson2@sycamores.indstate.edu

or at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu. 

Deep Practice: Perfection over Permanence

Deep Practice: Perfection over Permanence

By John Schilawski

Assistant Superintendent

Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation

Doctoral Student of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

&

Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

We often do what we do in schools, because we have always done it.  Such is the case with policy, practice, and people.  At times, we unearth what we believe are new strategies for “best practice,” either through sound research or deft marketing.  In other cases, something “suspect” hides for a time in plain sight, and we never really discern its shortcomings.

One practice to note is ironically, that of “practice” – a student’s practice with the content and skills that we are trying to teach.  Could it be that we’re doing it wrong?  Possibly, if done in the context of one teacher working with twenty to thirty students at a time, as we believe that we may be fooling ourselves that the guided practice we are monitoring is actually “guided” at all.  Let’s discuss.

As we have believed for some time in K-12 education, guided practice is often the way to assure high levels of learning and retention of material. Independent practice beyond is thought beneficial as well.  Student practice of academic content has been an integral part of pedagogy in K-12 schools for many years.

In consideration of practice’s importance in the mosaic of the teaching/learning experience, a couple of quotes come to mind.

1. “Practice makes perfect,” and
2. “Practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.”

The initial quote has roots stretching back to a 1500’s proverb; it is speculated that its first use in the United States was by President John Adams, when as a young attorney he offered commentary on his early courtroom performances, “I was too incautious and unartful in my proceedings, but practice makes perfect” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/young-lawyer-1758-1761/).

Legendary Green Bay Packers Coach Vince Lombardi offered us the second quote. It oftentimes reminds us of different experiences in growing from child to adult, such as the repetition of free throws, work on the balance beam, wrestling takedowns, music lessons, marching band drills, musical rehearsals, dance steps, and even plucking away at the violin, to mention a few examples.

We all can put memory, or even a bit of nostalgia, to one quote or the other.

The focus of this discussion is more on “practice” as an academic pursuit, and its value as we are practicing it. The reality is that although practice can help students improve – and in extreme cases can help them to reach master performance – practice can also yield marginal results or even cause a decline in performance.

Ouch.  That’s not what we intend.

One of our favorite reads on the subject is Daniel Coyle’s, The Talent Code (2009), in which Coyle describes a young clarinet student named Clarissa. In this example, he noted the girl in six minutes actually accomplished a month’s worth of learning.  The key was that she didn’t just “practice”; she instead used “deep practice,” along with concentration, determination, and perseverance.  It didn’t hurt that she liked the song and wanted to play it well.

By the way, Clarissa was not a virtuoso; in fact Coyle described her as somewhat mediocre.  Now what is particularly interesting is that after that six minutes spent in deep practice, Clarissa went on to a familiar piece that she performed with relative ease, with few mistakes, yet in reality, did not do it justice.  She simply practiced.  In such, she was not thinking or learning; it was a waste of time.

Coyle believed the differences in results for practice and deep practice lie, in part, in Myelin.  From a neurochemical perspective, Myelin is what the brain produces to wrap around neural fibers.  It insulates them; protects them.  It cerebrally converts, over time, a neurological two-track into a cerebral superhighway.

The thicker the Myelin, the better insulated the electrical impulse, causing information regarding performance to move faster and more efficiently. This is what Coyle believes is “The Talent Code.”

Others have informed our thoughts on practice as well.  Pink (2009) equated intense, highly productive learning with a personal strive for mastery based on a person’s motivation.  He noted this as Type I behavior “fueled more by intrinsic desires” (p. 77).  According to Drive, “The secret to high performance and satisfaction . . . is the deeply held, human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and our world” (admittedly from the cover jacket, yet we actually read further).  

Think about how long a child will sit in front of a computer navigating and playing games, drawing on paper, playing with PlayDoh, or building with Legos.  Countless hours are spent in this realm of extended learning and expansive creativity.  Watching a child maneuver in Mario world or running the dungeon maze is captivating; they learn through trial and error, problem-solving continually and even more important, leveling-up.

In his treatise on why some children do not like math, Dr. Robert Sun (2014) said, “Interest is a function of proficiency-and proficiency requires practice” (Power of Deep Practice section, para. 1).  He continued, “Through Deep Practice techniques, skills that might take months of conventional practice can be mastered in a matter of weeks or even days” (Power of Deep Practice section, para. 4).  Of course, this has to occur under the right conditions.

So what’s the rub?  Why are we a bit concerned with doing what has always been done? About practice?

In education we all-too-often rely on mass practice and redundancy through repetition –  “skill and drill.”   We’re not here to say that repetition doesn’t have a place in learning; however, we are saying that it should not be a default strategy in lesson design or in anyone’s thoughts on “best practice” in the teaching and learning process.

Hattie (2012) advocated the use of spaced practice rather than mass practice.

Consider the fact that if a child does not understand the order of operation in Math, is it really reasonable to believe that giving him or her fifty additional problems will yield minimal results toward mastery?  From Hattie’s (2012) meta-analysis, spaced-practice verses mass-practice ranked 13th on a list of influences on achievement.  

We contend, building upon the work of Coyle, Pink, Sun, and Hattie, that a child’s spending more time on the task makes little difference in learning.  Rather, it runs the risk of making what one is doing more permanent, than perfect.

One-on-thirty?  We don’t think so. 

With finite human resources a reality, we can still creatively design experiences in which students can be provided the opportunity to practice appropriate, skill-building experiences and strong immediate feedback. In doing so, a few well-structured problems may facilitate a level of deep practice, which produces higher-than-average results in terms of time and effort.

Consider the natural order of one’s curiosity in terms of things relevant, exciting, or of great interest, whether practical or not.  If a child wants badly enough to learn something, he or she will find a way to make it happen. The secret is in our making the connection between what we know is important for children to learn, and what they perceive to be of interest to themselves.  Serving as a choreographer of these connections may very well be our first job as educators; offering opportunities of deep practice in meaningful bursts, with the ability to redirect in-the-moment, may be one of our most important. 

If any argument could be made for increasing content preparation for educators, it would be this:  Pre-service educators need to invest in what our best coaches have -- moment-by-moment efficacy and confidence in the talent-development of their protégés; in fact, that which redirects misaligned permanence, into deep-practiced perfection.

“That,” we could all live with in K-12.      

References

Coyle, D. (2009). The talent code: Greatness isn’t born.  It’s grown. Here’s how. New York, NY: Natam Dell.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:  Routledge.

Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY:  Riverhead Books

Sun, B. (2014, August 25). Four letters that will energise america. The London Economic.  Retrieved from http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/2014/08/25/four-letters-that-will-energise-america/

____________________________________________________________ 

John Schilawski and Ryan Donlan are educational reimaginists who do not hesitate to question what is currently in place and purported to help students achieve.  If you wish to call-them-out on anything they are championing, don’t hesitate to reach-out and begin the conversation at jschilawski@cpcsc.k12.in.us or ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.  They’ll be glad you did!

Punishing Teachers and Hurting Kids?

Punishing Teachers and Hurting Kids?

By Amy Blake

Director of Special Education

New Castle Area Special Services

Doctoral Student

Indiana State University

&

Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

Today’s society includes a world of extreme competition, with high-stakes decisions, little room for error, and strong consequences for failure.  As a result, some members of society search for strategies that will “put the squeeze” on those who are under-performing and impose consequences for failure to improve. In fact, while painting with such a broad stroke, they also at times, adversely affect to those who are not under-performing, because of those who do under-perform.

Education has not escaped this pressure and is subject to intense scrutiny. Oftentimes, education takes the brunt of public frustration for society’s misgivings, resulting in unnecessary and misguided strategies imposed upon those working in a profession that is already replete with unintended consequences. It is with this in mind that we will shed light on one such strategy that we feel is missing the mark, with the potential to punish teachers and hurt kids.  Consider the following:

IC 20-29-6-3 Unlawful deficit financing
     Sec. 3. (a) It is unlawful for a school employer to enter into any agreement that would place the employer in a position of deficit financing due to a reduction in the employer's actual general fund revenue or an increase in the employer's expenditures when the expenditures exceed the employer's current year actual general fund revenue.
    (b) A contract that provides for deficit financing is void to that extent, and an individual teacher's contract executed under the contract is void to that extent.
As added by P.L.1-2005, SEC.13. Amended by P.L.48-2011, SEC.13.

As a result of funding reductions and economic changes beyond the control of school districts, many school corporations across the state of Indiana could essentially find themselves with budgets that as a result, have expenses that exceed revenues (i.e. “spend more than they earn”) – budgets that would result in deficit spending from the general fund.

In an effort to address this concern, Indiana has enacted a statute that appears to restrict expenditures for school districts that are in deficit financing. The section of Indiana Code that addresses this concern is found in Title 20, Article 29, Chapter 6, Section 3 (IC 20-29-6-3) Specifically, a portion of IC 20-29-6-3(a) states, “It is unlawful for a school employer to enter into any agreement that would place the employer in a position of deficit financing...”  So, what does this really mean? Well, our interpretation is that it means a school district who is operating in deficit financing is prohibited from entering into an agreement with their teachers to increase, or possibly even to maintain teacher compensation at given staffing levels that are necessary for a quality education for children.

At face value, this law seems to make a lot of sense. After all, everyone must work within a budget, especially those that are spending the public’s money, such as schools.  So, what’s the big deal?  The big deal is that the categorical application of this rule, without exception or flexibility, can result in the unintended outcomes of punishing teachers and hurting kids. 

We are concerned that this rule could punish teacher longevity, which may result in greater turnover rate and ultimately hurt kids as a result of diminished consistency in the teaching staff.  For example, let’s say that Sally is a highly effective teacher who loves her students and works hard to meet their needs. However, Sally’s school corporation is currently in deficit spending. Therefore, IC 20-29-6-3(a) directly applies to Sally’s school corporation, prohibiting her corporation from granting increased compensation to any employee, including teachers. As a result, Sally is placed in a difficult situation. As long as Sally’s corporation remains in deficit spending, Sally will not receive an increase in compensation regardless of her highly effective performance.

Eventually, Sally may have to make a painful decision. She may even feel that the only way to receive the increased compensation she needs to maintain “cost of living” is to work for a corporation that is not in deficit financing. This means that Sally may have to resign her current teaching position and accept a teaching position with a neighboring corporation (who is not in deficit financing). Doing so might permit her to hire in and receive credit for her experience and performance, resulting in increased compensation. For Sally and her students, this is very unfortunate.

Could financial rigidity also create a disincentive for school corporations to maintain the employment of the more costly teachers of longer service, who are performing at the same levels as more junior teachers that don’t cost as much?

Although IC 20-29-6-3(a) does ensure, more or less, that school corporations will maintain the balanced budgets that appropriations provide to them, the reality is that the ultimate impact can be harmful for kids, when situations beyond a school’s control put a squeeze on revenue after budgets have been built.

After all, school corporations cannot magically increase revenue. They cannot raise the price of their products or services in order to make a quick buck. Rather, schools operate on fixed incomes while providing services and supports for students, that they themselves may increase in cost.  Too often, that means that a corporation will operate in deficit spending, as the realities of our economy pit one public service over another when additional revenue requests of tax-paying businesses or citizens are not politically attractive. 

So, what’s the answer?

We believe that the answer lies not in “focusing on what is broken,” but rather in focusing on “what we want more of” (Regier & King, 2013, p. 161) as we work to make a positive difference.  

A good start would be to reconsider the probable, unintended consequences of IC 20-29-6-3(a) and search for meaningful alternative strategies to address deficit spending. Perhaps a solution resides in finding a way to make every public dollar count while still focusing on what we want more of in our schools (i.e. more highly effective teachers and improved student achievement). 

In the meantime, we might publicly recognize what is NOT the answer – inflexibility and uniformity in anyone’s bottom line. That could punish teachers and hurt kids.

References

Unlawful deficit financing, Ind. Code. §§ 20-29-6-3 (2011).

  

Regier, N., & King, J. (2013). Beyond drama: Transcending energy vampires. Newton, KS:  

            Next Element Publishing.  

____________________________________________________ 

Amy Blake and Ryan Donlan have strong perspectives regarding using broad-brushstroke solutions in situations requiring a fine pen to solve the problems we face in education, in our state, and in our nation.  If you would like to join them in conversation, please do not hesitate to contact them at ablake4@sycamores.indstate.edu or at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.

Rearranging Seats on the Titanic

Rearranging Seats on the Titanic

By E. Scott England

First Grade Teacher

Sullivan (IL) Elementary School

Doctoral Student

Indiana State University

&

Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

Let’s take a quick trip back to April 15, 1912 in the Atlantic Ocean.  Close your eyes and picture the layout of the ship, the Titanic, the best you can. White walls so recently painted a faint smell of fresh paint lingers as rich mahogany chairs and tables beautify the dining salon; wicker chairs and tables set upon brightly colored linoleum floor next to a view of the vast Atlantic Ocean, and leather upholstered loungers designed with eloquence and for comfort surrounded by intricately stained glass windows.     

With your eyes still closed, rearrange the layout in whatever manner you choose. Let’s now do a quick check of your new arrangement: would the Titanic still sink?

Of course it would.

Regardless of any layout configuration, the sinking of the Titanic was not caused by the location of rooms or the furniture selected to adorn the massive ocean liner. What could have kept it afloat would have been a stronger hull or a leader more receptive to potential danger warnings (Ryan, 1985).

While this may seem a silly exercise of a few minutes we’ll never get back, it’s really more similar to what we do in K-12 education than many of us would like to admit.  We oftentimes rearrange the furniture when the foundations are cracking in our educational organizations as well.  Too often, a toxic work atmosphere is reorganized in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the toxicity.  All that has really been done though is rearranged the same factors that made up the negative atmosphere before, thereby spreading the stink without really sanitizing anything. 

In order to improve K-12 leadership for better schools, we might consider our need to restructure rather than to rearrange.

Before we continue, let’s take a moment to define restructure.  Merriam-Webster (2014) defines restructure as “to change the basic organization or structure of” (def. 1, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restructure).  The keyword upon which to focus is change.  Thinking back to the Titanic, can we see how change could have altered the course of history?  If we were to have rearranged what was already there, we would have had no lasting effect upon the disaster.

Now let us think of a K-12 workplace scenario. 

It probably isn’t too far from the truth to say that we have all experienced a toxic person, which for our purposes here would be a teacher, Ned Nasty – that is, one who has a negative demeanor in speech, actions, or in one’s general existence in the workplace.  Taking this one step further, we will assume for our example here that others have side-barred with leadership about this person’s bringing down the atmosphere of the lounge during lunchtime. 

Let’s examine a few choices:

First, a leader could simply rearrange the person’s schedule so they have lunch at a different time than those complaining.  Unfortunately, this would result in Ned’s having lunch with another group of people that would soon share with leadership the same complaint.

Second, a leader could invite change to the way the person is behaving, in the structure of the interactions taking place.  What might be a good first step?  Quite possibly, it would be a heart-to-heart conversation, an open talk as it were.  Could it be possible that Ned doesn’t see what he is doing is toxic?  Maybe so.  Maybe not.

More than likely a psychological need is not being met in Ned, and in the absence of the positive fulfillment of that need, Ned is unconsciously meeting those needs through distressed behavior, such as being critical, hyper-convictional, manipulative, or even reactive (Kahler, 2008).  It’s not so much whether or not these behaviors are intentional; of course they are.  It’s more important to understand that the person exhibiting the behaviors is interpreting their resultant effect differently than those who may be affected by them. 

Rearranging would be for a leader to invite the person to consider that a more appropriate time and place would be appropriate for the behavior.  Restructuring would be for the leader to help the person address the underlying, unmet need so that the person moves out of distress (Kahler, 2008).

Tragically, when a problem arises in K-12 education, the solution leaders often use involves rearranging previous pieces to create different variations of the same problem.  Quite possibly, this rearranging is done to prevent feelings from being hurt, through a bit of avoidance, as restructuring takes much more time and attention, and often a critical conversation.

In extreme cases, it might result in a bit of severance. In First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently, Marcus Buckingham and Kurt Coffman (2009) stated, “Sometimes the only way to cure a bad relationship is to get out of it” (p. 174).  To be a successful leader, you may find yourself at times, making these types of decisions -- those that affect you emotionally.  But a truly successful leader is going to act in the best interest of those dedicated to furthering the organization’s mission, rather than in the best interest of least resistance or expediency.

Think of the Titanic again as we ponder acting in our best interests compared with acting for the greater good.  The Titanic carried the required minimum sixteen lifeboats plus an additional four inflatable lifeboats (Sinek, 2014).  There was room for the more, but the decision was made to settle for the minimum.  It wouldn’t matter how the lifeboats were arranged, the number was still twenty in all.  That is thinking for one’s self. 

Now let’s imagine that someone acted upon change before the Titanic set sail.  Imagine that additional lifeboats were added to accommodate everyone that would sail on the maiden voyage.  Even if the ship still struck the iceberg in the middle of the cold Atlantic, more lives could have been saved than lost.

We cannot stand idly by and watch K-12 staff morale sink as tragically as the Titanic.  We must summon the courage from our leadership toolbox to begin the difficult process of restructuring.  With hope and prudent stewardship, we can plug the hole and save everyone aboard.

References

Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Kahler, T. (2008). The Process Therapy Model: Six personality types with adaptations. Little Rock, AR: Taibi Kahler & Associates, Inc.

Restructure. (2014). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restructure

Ryan, P. R. (1985/86). The Titanic: Lost and found (1912 – 1985). Oceanus, 28(4), 4 – 14.

Sinek, S. (2014). Leaders eat last: Why some teams pull together and others don’t. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

____________________________________________________________ 

E. Scott England and Ryan Donlan are looking for the longer-term solutions in K-12 education that will bring lasting improvements to how teachers teach and how students learn.  They believe that these solutions start with a leader’s focus on people and the underlying structures of relationships and communication that influence how they accomplish what they do each day.  Please feel free to join the conversation by contacting them at englands@sullivan.k12.il.us or ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.

A NEW Parental Engagement in Schools

A NEW Parental Engagement in Schools

By Cathy Rowe

Superintendent

Frontier School Corporation

Doctoral Student

Indiana State University

&

Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

                  As educational leaders, we are oftentimes looked upon for leadership in the worst of times and in the best of times -- for guidance and reassurance that all will be well, even when it will not.  Such vast responsibility is not without burden for the K-12 school leader, at times begging the question, “Will I make the right decision?” or “Is this the best I can offer?” 

            Sounds a bit familiar, like what many of us experience at home.

In a sense, leadership is like parenting – a NEW type of parental engagement in schools.  Each day, it presents itself, as we take every opportunity to nurture, guide, and watch over our programmatic “children” in the best of times and the worst of times.  It’s not just a family of five, it’s a family of five hundred and five, figured conservatively.

One great challenge inherent in programmatic parenting is the fact that if children are not thriving, we believe it is our fault.  With myriad societal variables in play, we truly embrace this very fact of our leadership, whether fair or not as we self-reflect.  Do you?

            Taking personal responsibility for not only the educational attainment of students, but also their emotional, physical and social needs, is what we as effective leaders do every day.  As teachers, principals and superintendents, our students and staff look to us to make the right decisions.  They look to us, as do children to parents, in order to get their needs met.  And then they look again the very next day.

This never-ending stewardship of others’ needs is pivotal to understanding that leadership involves an ongoing and never-ending commitment to others above self -- relationships over tasks. Thankfully, with responsibility comes reward. Wrapping services around students, as well as adults when they are in need pays multiple dividends in establishing a community of mutual respect, a collaborative work setting, and a family environment in which everyone works together.  This is especially helpful in that K-12 education is being asked to compete on an arduous playing field, necessitating a team that is greater than the sum of its parts.

We engender such a team through our parenting.  Consider a military analogy:

            Just as our best Marine leaders eat last (Sinek, 2014), those who are privileged to serve in leadership understand that leading must come at the expense of self-interest. We don’t necessary contend as do others, that there is no “I” in team, yet we would say that one does better with “we.”  Putting employees’ needs above any selfish motives is at the heart of effective leadership, as it is with parenting.

            And what goes around comes around.

            Leaders are not always gifted with friendly terrain.  Such is the case in K-12 education today, where danger evoking flight or fight can affect performance. We know that in any hierarchy of needs, the most foundational include one’s safety and security.  Leaders have an influence here as well, as parents would with their own families.  How do?  By creating Circles of Safety (Sinek, 2014).

Creating Circles of Safety (Sinek, 2014) provides a bit of protection in situations fraught with risk -- those very same circumstances that can potentially reap the most dividend for our efforts on behalf of teaching and learning – as they are less traveled.

Circles of Safety develop strong bonds of trust in employees as they are protected from the outside forces that threaten to do harm to the organization, and thus, to them.  As parents of the organization, leaders work to ensure that the employees are sheltered as they are developing, exposed to only as much as they can handle. Consider also the fact that as children mature, they can then run a bit of interference for their parents from time to time, as employees themselves can provide Circles to leaders, when their safety is, at times, threatened from the outside. 

            Leaders cannot, and we believe “would not” escape parenting, even the feelings that parenting engenders.

            How many times do we as leaders have outside obligations that take us away from our schools such as professional development trainings and/or conferences, only to begin to feel the isolation and distance from those to whom we are responsible, much as parents would their own children?  As parents find themselves bringing back to their children travel mementos or trinkets to help offset the separation that they have experienced, leaders act similarly, reaching out to reconnect on personals level when returning to buildings in an effort to re-establish the critical social connections so important in their day-to-day lives. 

We know that being parentally engaged with people – socially, emotionally, or otherwise – is at the root of successful relationships.  This holds true in personal relationships with our own children or with those we lead in our organizations.  Recognizing the importance of parenting and cultivating Circles of Safety are of paramount importance as we hope to raise our next generation, ensuring positive caretaking and development of generations beyond.

References

Sinek, Simon (2014).  Leaders eat last:  Why some teams pull together and others don’t.  New York, NY:  Penguin Books

           

______________________________________________________________ 

Cathy Rowe and Ryan Donlan recognize that at the heart of effective leadership is a foundational belief in one’s responsibility to care for others dependent upon us.  It is with this in mind that they hope to continue their conversation, any time you wish, if you would be willing to contact them at crowe2@sycamores.indstate.edu or ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.