Eduleadership
Research, Reflections, and Tips for School Leaders
Book Review: Results Without Authority
Jan 10th
My school district has taken an interest in project management (PM) lately, and while principals have not been part of the PM training, I thought I would look into the field and see what I could learn to help in my work.
The book that rose to my attention is Results Without Authority: Controlling a Project When the Team Doesn’t Report to You: A Project Manager’s Guide, by Tom Kendrick of Hewlett-Packard. This book is written from squarely within the corporate world, and while Kendrick’s examples focus on the types of project work that you might expect to take place in a company like HP, I found it easy to make connections with the world of education.
I resonated with Kendrick’s experience of leading a cross-functional team, with many members from other departments. I have at least 7 employees in my building who don’t report to me, but to a central office supervisor. We must work together on numerous aspects of school operations, from student support programs to coordinating evening family events. While principals naturally have a certain amount of authority even over employees they do not directly supervise, the strategies Kendrick uses are very helpful for avoiding the overuse of positional power, which can damage relationships and result in minimal compliance.
Kendrick outlines three primary ways to influence and guide a project to ensure that you get results:
- Control through process – articulating and gaining agreement on how the work will be done (including how it will be monitored)
- Control through influence – using vision, relationship-building, rewards, celebration, and other non-coercive means of getting everyone on the team to do their part
- Control through project metrics – closely monitoring critical indicators of project health, and making adjustments when these indicators reveal a problem
Kendrick has a chapter on each of these aspects of controlling projects; these chapters are probably the most worthwhile for school leaders. There are are also chapters on project initiation, planning, execution, monitoring, and closure, but I found that these chapters got into details that don’t apply as directly to school leaders’ work.
However, one benefit of reading widely – beyond the field of education – is that one encounters concepts that are valuable to professionals in other lines of work. Thinking about these concepts from Kendrick’s book may help me better define what needs to be done for a given school initiative. For example:
- Deliverables – clearly defined products or documents that will be the end result of the project, e.g. a piece of software, a written manual, or a physical object that will be manufactured to exact specifications. In education, a deliverable might be a curriculum document, a service delivery model and schedule, or a written plan.
- Control – Kendrick uses the term control not in the sense of power or authority, but in the sense of manageability; to control a project is to keep it from spiraling into an unworkable mess. Making sure the work is realistic (in terms of timeline and budget) is essential for control.
- Metrics – specific measurements that indicate whether a project is trending in the right direction. While schools almost universally focus on “data,” the way Kendrick describes the use of metrics is much more diagnostic and linked to planning rather than judgments of success or failure. Are we on schedule to meet our next deadline? Is something costing much more than we anticipated?
- Sponsorship – in order to succeed with a project that may require more authority than you have, it’s essential that the project have an executive sponsor who can insist that you get the support you need. In a small district, this will likely be the superintendent; in a larger district, it may be another central office executive leader. The sponsor needs to know the purpose and plan for the project, and to needs to be kept in the loop as the project unfolds and changes.
Should you read Results Without Authority? Kendrick’s chapters on process, influence, and metrics are probably worth reading, even if it takes a bit of effort to make the connection between corporate PM and your work as a school leader. The rest may be worth skimming, as the remainder of the text is not particularly easy to get through. Kendrick gives good examples from actual projects, and the book features helpful diagrams, but it’s a fairly technical read.
Here’s another review of Results Without Authority, with detailed summaries of each chapter.
Regardless of whether Results Without Authority makes it onto your bookshelf this year, I highly recommend taking time to read widely within and beyond the field of education. You will doubtless find, as I did, many helpful concepts and insights that you’d never have encountered otherwise.
My Essential Mac Applications
Dec 6th
I will be upgrading my laptop’s hard drive soon, and I thought this would be a good opportunity to share a list of the Mac applications I plan to keep:
- Microsoft Office – Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage. Poorly written, but essential, especially for email and calendar sync with Exchange Server.
- OmniFocus for keeping track of tasks
- Evernote – my virtual file cabinet, for effortlessly keeping track of all information (text, photo, and otherwise)
- iTunes – essential for backing up the iPhone
- Firefox – increasingly the web browser is where work is done, and Firefox is the best.
- TweetDeck – the best Twitter client.
- OmniOutliner – a powerful outlining tool – much better than Microsoft Word. I will need to manually copy this, as I’m also upgrading OS X to Snow Leopard, but it’s not included
- VLC Media Player – a free, universal media player. More useful than QuickTime.
- Aperture, reluctantly – it’s out of date, but it has all of my photos trapped inside. Waiting for Aperture 3 to come out to upgrade.
- Fetch – FTP application.
- Caffeine – keeps the computer from going into “sleep” mode when you don’t want it to.
- UpOneLevel.app – a little script that adds a folder navigation keyboard shortcut for Finder.
- Curio – a great project planning tool, like a digital creative space. I use it for planning professional development.
- JungleDisk – for accessing backup data stored on Amazon Web Services.
- Skitch – a quick screen capture utility. Lets you annotate and publish/export screen captures very easily.
- Skype – I’d like to start using Skype to talk to people around the world, but I haven’t done so in years.
- TextWrangler – the best text/html file editor, capable of handling just about any plaintext file.
- Transmission – for managing large file transfers.
- Handbrake – for converting video from old to new formats.
- Quicksilver – a keyboard-based launching utility. They just released a Snow Leopard-ready version, after a long time without any new releases.
There are of course tons of other applications on my computer now, but I don’t think I’d go to the trouble of reinstalling them unless I had a specific reason.
What applications – Mac, Windows, or otherwise – do you find essential? If your computer was erased tomorrow, what would you reinstall immediately?
Physics Envy: Why “Best Practices” Don’t Scale Up Well (and What to Do About It)
Nov 29th
Is education a science, and if so, what kind of science? What implications does this have for instructional leadership?
We typically think of physics as the ideal science – it is consistent, universal, and predictable. An experiment conducted in France can be replicated in Mexico or the United States, and the same results can be expected. If teaching is a science, why isn’t there a similar level of predictability?
This question has enormous implications for both instructional leaders and for policymakers. In the October 2009 issue of Educational Researcher (AERA), Pamela A. Moss, D. C. Phillips, Frederick D. Erickson, Robert E. Floden, Patti A. Lather, and Barbara L. Schneider take up the question of quality in education research in their article “Learning From Our Differences: A Dialogue Across Perspectives on Quality in Education Research” (38: 501-517).
Erickson explains why educational research is constantly (and unfruitfully) compared with natural science research:
The reason social science has suffered from physics envy is the assumption that the social world is basically like the natural world. What makes physics and chemistry work is an assumption of the uniformity of nature—a unit of force, or of heat, or a chemical element is the same in Britain as it is in France or on the face of the moon or in the most far-flung galaxy.
…
In the 19th century, as the social sciences were developing (looking over their shoulders at the mathematical physics of Galileo and Newton), there was a serious argument over whether social sciences should model themselves after the natural sciences or try for something else.
…
Adherents of what became the meaning-oriented approaches to social inquiry, the hermeneutical approaches described by Moss (2005b), took a position that meaning differences made such a difference between one social setting and another that there was in effect a nonuniformity of nature in social life (as I called it in my 1986 article on qualitative research on teaching; see Erickson, 1986). The notion was that it is local meaning that is causal in social life, and local meaning varies fundamentally (albeit sometimes subtly) from one setting to another. One of the consequences of this notion is deep distrust of the possibility of any generalization at all in social research…
…
Close descriptive study of a setting, based on extended participant observation and interviewing, doesn’t try to generalize directly from that setting to others…what happens in Miss Smith’s first grade is fundamentally different as a local ecology (subtly different, despite surface appearances of similarity) from what happens in Miss Jones’s room across the hall in the same school building. (Parents know this—that’s why they fight to get their kids into Miss Smith’s room, away from Miss Jones.) Nor is what happens in Miss Smith’s room quite the same as what happens in Miss Robinson’s room in the next school district. It follows that policy evidence for “scaling up”—trying to get everybody to adopt “best practices”—no matter how well produced technically—just doesn’t tell us what we need to know as educators. Best practices, as specific behaviors, don’t travel intact across the hall in one school building, let alone across the country. (p. 508, emphasis added)
Erickson’s extended argument implies what we, as instructional leaders, have long known: good teaching can’t be measured simply by checklists of “best practices.” Some of our best teachers don’t use the best practice du jour, and some of our most compliant adopters of new best practices are unable to pull everything together to create powerful and coherent learning experiences for students.
This suggests that instructional leadership is going to remain a labor-intensive, and inherently local, endeavor. If we want to improve the quality of teaching and learning in every classroom, we will need to be in every classroom. We will need to know the research, but the research will not save us. It may give us direction and help us understand what is taking place in our classrooms, but it does not (and cannot) provide a recipe for high-quality instruction.
In order to understand what is happening in a classroom and whether it’s good for kids, we need to adopt what Elmore (in Instructional Rounds) calls a descriptive-analytical-predictive approach. Briefly, we must ask three questions:
- What is taking place in this classroom?
- What dynamics does this create?
- What learning do we expect this set of dynamics to cause?
After asking these questions, we can consider what next steps will improve the teaching and learning taking place in the classroom.
How do you see social science research influencing your work as an instructional leader?
Managing To-Do Lists
Nov 23rd
How do you keep track of your tasks? Do you have a to-do list, a random collection of sticky notes, a journal, or a more complex system?
If you keep a to-do list, a common problem is that the list gets too long, and it becomes harder to sort through it. When you reach this point, do you break it into multiple lists, and if so, on the basis of what criteria?
David Allen, in his bestselling book Getting Things Done, recommends collecting tasks on a “next actions” list, and only splitting it into separate project when you actually have multi-step projects.
I find it tempting to subdivide my lists by topic, even when a set of tasks isn’t actually a project – for example, when I have a number of tasks that are all about staff evaluations, but are in fact discrete tasks rather than a coordinated project in the sense that, say, planning a trip is a project. This isn’t a good idea.
The problem with creating too many lists is that they create too many places in which your tasks can hide.
How do you keep your tasks organized and visible, so you can keep track of them and make sure you complete them?
Feedback for Performance: Low-Hanging Fruit
Nov 15th
When giving feedback to improve the performance of those you supervise, where do you start?
If something is painfully wrong, it’s obvious where to focus your attention. If you observe practices that are harmful to students, unethical, unprofessional, or unsafe, it’s easy to know what to address first.
Most of the time, though, we need to provide feedback that isn’t so obvious. When someone is generally doing a good job, how do we decide what to mention, knowing that we have a limited bandwidth for giving constructive feedback?
In this situation, the critical question is “What changes will lead to the largest gains in performance?” More to the point in classroom settings, “What changes in practice will have the greatest benefits for student learning?”
These questions stand in contrast to the typical starting point for feedback, which is the “I noticed…have you thought about…?” line of coaching. Too often, what we notice from a lesson observation is based on a personal interest or pet issue, not the opportunity for improved results.
For example, if I know from informal observations that a teacher’s greatest challenge is adequately preparing for math instruction, I should not allow myself to be distracted by minor areas for improvement that I identify during a formal observation. While it’s important to cite specific evidence when providing feedback, leaders must be purposeful in collecting evidence that will support feedback in the areas of greatest need.
What is the low-hanging fruit for each person you supervise? What feedback would improve their performance the most? Think about it as you prepare for your next observation or discussion.
Feedback for Performance
Nov 1st
If we want to get better results, we can change the working conditions, the inputs, or the actions we take to do the work. As individuals, we often don’t have much control over the inputs or conditions of our work, so the primary point of leverage for improvement is the set of actions we take on the job.
In order to do our work better, we need to get a perspective from someone else on how we’re doing, and how we might do better in the future. This, at the most basic level, is what feedback is.
For an expert supervising a novice, the process of giving feedback is straightforward – observe, describe (with reference to a standard for excellence), celebrate successes, and make suggestions for improvement.
But for principals supervising more experienced staff, the challenges vary. Providing constructive (and not just complimentary) feedback to master teachers is no easy task. Another challenge comes when attempting to provoke thinking to challenge long-established habits or practices.
What challenges do you encounter in giving (or receiving) feedback? What have you found to be effective in improving performance in your organization?
A Response to Cliff Mass on Math Standards and Assessment
Oct 24th
Seattle meteorologist Cliff Mass, who is a prolific blogger, as well as a UW professor, is also an active member of Where’s the Math?, a parent advocacy group working to improve mathematics instruction in Washington.
Cliff recently had a post on his blog suggesting that OSPI (the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, our state board of education) under Randy Dorn is failing to correct the mistakes of his predecessor when it comes to math education and assessment.
First, I should point out that Cliff does a good job of describing our need to back off a bit from the overly-fuzzy approaches to teaching math that were in vogue until recently. However, it’s easy to make the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, or to be distracted by irrelevant issues such as whether kids today are being taught to do math in the same way older generations were taught.
We’re big fans of Cliff’s weather blog in my house, so I’m writing from a position of respectful disagreement. As much as I respect his expertise as a meteorologist, I must say that Dr. Mass appears to fundamentally misunderstand how academic content standards are assessed in Washington:
Recently, Dorn’s staff released the Test Development Guidelines that will guide the writing of new WA standardized tests. These are on the OSPI website in the What’s New box at this link. In these guidelines, bold text is used to indicate what parts of each state math standard should be tested.
That’s correct. In fact, many parts of the standards are not assessed on the state test, because there are too many standards to assess in a single test.
It’s always been this way, and not just for math – every subject area tested by the WASL contains many content standards that simply don’t make it into the test. Dorn is making the MSP much shorter than the WASL, so even greater selectivity will be needed.
Some standards are difficult or impossible to assess on a standardized test, and must be assessed by the teacher through classroom-based assessments. The science standards contain many obvious examples, but so do the math standards. I find it odd that Cliff writes:
Even a cursory examination of these guidelines reveals that state standards are being compromised to further a Discovery math agenda. Fluency, competency, and standard algorithms are not deemed important enough for evaluation. To illustrate this problem, consider the following key grade 3 standard, with the bold text representing content to be assessed:
“3.1.C Fluently and accurately add and subtract whole numbers using the standard regrouping algorithms.” (page12)
As you can see, neither fluency nor standard algorithms will be tested.
Where Cliff sees a sinister agenda, I see OSPI being very realistic about what the WASL/MSP can actually measure. By “fluently,” he means “quickly.” Measuring fluency would require the state to create a timed test like the ones teachers routinely give in class to ensure that students are learning their basic math facts. It would also require a statewide definition of math fact fluency.
While I want students to be able to quickly recall and use the basic math facts, I don’t think it’s helpful to insist that all students – with their range of fine motor skills, memory recall speeds, and responses to the pressure of a timed test – be held to whatever arbitrary standard could be created. The WASL/MSP is an untimed test – students have as much time as they need to complete it. Changing this would surely prevent some students from demonstrating what they really do know, and would invite lawsuits from parents whose children have disabilities or otherwise complete tests more slowly than other students.
Fluency with basic facts is best tested by teachers in the classroom, who have the best sense of what level of fluency is acceptable for each student, based on the many factors that affect the speed at which they can complete a test. While knowing the basic facts should be a nonnegotiable expectation for all students, being able to write them out quickly does not strike me as a nearly as important a concern as, say, strong conceptual understanding.
You’ll also note that “using the standard regrouping algorithm” is not bolded. Is Mass suggesting that the WASL/MSP penalize students for using the “wrong” technique to solve a problem, even if they solve it correctly? If so, this is ironic considering Where’s the Math?’s complaints about homework that requires students to use non-standard procedures for solving problems. “Who cares if we use a certain technique, as long as the answer’s correct?” is a common complaint. When it comes to high-stakes assessments, I agree. If students understand the concepts and can solve problems using one or more of the algorithms or techniques at their disposal, I don’t see a reason to penalize them for using a technique other than the standard algorithms.
Cliff continues:
The same undermining was applied to multiplication and division, with none of this standard bolded:
“4.1.A Quickly recall multiplication facts through 10 X 10 and the related division facts. “ (page26)So none of our state students have to worry about knowing multiplication and division facts very well! So students won’t have to know that 4×5=20, or 36/6=6!
According to discovery math supporters, that’s for calculators to know, not kids.
Again, the bolded text Cliff is referring to indicates standards that are actually tested on the WASL/MSP. Bolding this standard would require a timed test, which OSPI can’t create. Even if a standard isn’t tested by the state assessment, it’s still a standard which teachers are to help students meet, and this one is clearly best assessed by the teacher.
He concludes:
You can look through the rest yourself, but the bottom line is that the State math standards are being gutted by these folks. Fluency in basic operations will not be tested and they are trying to push the reform approach of heavy reliance on calculators and inefficient discovery-math algorithms.
…
Editing standards is clearly subverting the expressed written intent of the Washington State legislature and the needs of our state.
Again, the standards are not being “edited,” but marked as to what can actually be tested. The WASL has never tested every standard, and cannot.
If Dr. Mass would like to measure every single math standard on our annual state test, I would invite him to draft an assessment that is capable of doing so, and to submit it to Mr. Dorn for consideration. I would also be happy to review it, along with his plan for enduring peace in the Middle East and his list of suggestions for how to solve a problem like Maria.
Until then, I would suggest that advocacy groups such as Where’s the Math? attempt to understand what good math teaching actually looks like, and do the more challenging work of supporting good instruction K-12, rather than focus on the impossible goal of testing every standard.
Teaching for a Living: Views of Principal Support
Oct 20th
One set of findings is of particular relevance to principals. The study divided teachers into three groups – contented, disheartened, and idealists. While surveys of this type show only correlation (not causation), teacher responses about the support they get from principals are revealing:
In short, there is a strong relationship between job satisfaction (the category in which the teacher is placed, based on responses to other survey questions) and the leadership and support provided by the principal.
More from EdWeek (registration required) | Full report from Public Agenda
A/B Testing: Finding the Best Option
Oct 19th
Today I read a quantitative study of class-size effects, conducted in Tennessee around 1990. This study (Finn & Achilles, 1990) randomly assigned teachers and students to one of three conditions – small class size, regular class size, or regular class size with aide.
The findings are interesting, but I’d like to point out something unusual about this piece of research: it actually compared different policy options in real school settings to see which was better.
It’s remarkable how rare this type of experimentation is in education. Perhaps it’s the ethical difficulties, which are numerous.
First, we must do no harm to students in conducting research. Second, if it turns out that one option is superior to the other, how do we make it up to the students who received the inferior treatment? Or, at the very least, how do we justify to parents and other stakeholders that the research did no harm?
The Huffington Post uses A/B testing to see which of two headlines gets more clicks. After a few minutes of testing, the superior headline is declared the winner, and is the only one used from that point forward.
How much improvement could we see in education if we were able to regularly employ this type of “which is better?” experimentation?
Insignificant?
Oct 13th
As I was entering our standardized test data into a strategic plan template this morning, I saw that one of the options for the various subgroups (Native American, African American, Latino, Free/Reduced Lunch, etc.) was:
n < required
In other words, No Child Left Behind does not hold us accountable as a school for this group’s performance, because the group does not contain enough students.
I can appreciate this from the perspective of statistical validity – it’s not fair to say a school is doing a poor job on the basis of the test scores of a small handful of students.
But neither can we ignore the students in these small groups. Indeed, a commitment to equity demands that we never think of a group as insignificant, that we never think of a child as ignorable.
We owe our attention and dedication and best efforts to the education of all children, even – and especially – if they are but a small fraction of our school’s population.