Flashy or Foundational?

“Teaching is not about us being brilliant; it is about students being brilliant.” 

Tom Newkirk

Recently, my good friend Tony Sinanis posted the following question via Facebook:

“Something I've been thinking about... Are we more focused on the pockets of "great things" happening (the flashy/trendy/sexy things) & possibly losing sight of the fact that certain foundational practices aren't solidified? If that's a reality, I think progress won't become a sustainable norm in our schools. Thoughts?”

This caught my eye at an ironic time as I had been pondering the very same thing. My own short answer? Yes we are. And, No it won’t. In fact, if we only focus on--as Tony calls them--the flashy/trendy/sexy things, and in mere pockets, no less, while subordinating in importance foundational practices, we are doomed, methinks, to a future in which the pesky, inevitable education pendulum swings all the way over to a “back to basics” focus.

via: https://goo.gl/McBcyH

via: https://goo.gl/5JkdwB

My second thought was to suggest that this is yet another example of an “and” rather than an “or,” meaning we need to continue to explore the flashy/trendy/sexy while also making sure we are attending to the foundational. In other words, we need both. Then, in another moment of serendipity, I came across a blog post by another respected friend, Dean Shareski, titled, aptly enough: “When the Answer is Both.”

Dean suggests that simply saying it’s “both” is a bit of a copout, the kind of thing we say to please everyone. It may be partially true but it can also be an unsatisfying answer and one that lacks direction. Instead, we should determine what we think should be the focus, then emphasize and lead with what matters most. Good advice, and worth considering when choosing between the Foundational or the Flashy in Tony’s scenario.

Although I currently serve in one of the most innovative (“flashy”) districts with which I am familiar, I still think we need to lead with and emphasize the foundational. If we lead with the foundational, we can get to the flashy. On the other hand, I worry that if we lead with flashy, we may never get to foundational and we will be forced, at some point, to retreat all the way back to basics, which is a direction in which I am loathe to journey.

What, then, are some of the “foundational” things we must lead with and aim for in order to ensure we we are poised to implement “flashy” ways of achieving our goals? Here are five possible foundational non-negotiables worth considering:

• We must still focus on safe learning environments. Our first priority is student safety, including physical safety of course, but also social and emotional safety. If we fail to promote risk taking or fail to protect students from adverse consequences for initial failures, they will never feel safe with the flashy/trendy/sexy ideas we want to try in our classrooms. How are we ensuring that our kids will feel comfortable taking chances?
• We must still focus on learning. Anytime we implement a flashy new tech gizmo, we must have a purposeful learning goal in mind. What will students know and be able to do as a
  
  result?
• We must still focus on results. I know of nary an educator who entered the profession because they were passionate about standardized tests. I am no exception. Still, we must hold ourselves accountable for ensuring that our students are growing and learning. Are our students demonstrating growth?
• We must still focus on professional collaboration. If we do not carve out time to share ideas and resources, observe each other teaching and leading, and look at student work together, we will never move from pockets of excellence to networks of excellence. Are we identifying bright spots that are currently working and replicating these?
• Finally, we must focus on eliminating old practices when we agree to adopt new ones that are better. Anthony McConnell, an outstanding principal in our district, suggests that one of the easiest ways to innovate is to simply cease and desist with non-innovative practices. As but one example, many “innovative” schools still rely on “traditional” grading and reporting practices. No matter how flashy/trendy/sexy our instructional practices and tools, I suspect we will never be truly innovative if we try to marry those practices and tools with a traditional, centuries-old grading system. When we adopt new ideas that we determine are not only new, but better, are we also concomitantly doing away with the older ways of doing things that are now inferior?

Ultimately, as Tom Newkirk suggests above, our profession is not 

about us being brilliant (or “flashy”). In fact, some of the most

amazing lessons I have observed recently involved a teacher rarely speaking nor actively leading the learning. Instead, teaching is about our students being brilliant, with us ensuring that the environments (and “foundations”) we create and the plans we intentionally design allow our students to create, collaborate, communicate, think critically, and invest in their own learning. In the end, what is “flashy/trendy/sexy” is not what teachers are saying or doing, but what students are actually learning and to what extent they are growing. I fear that too often we focus on the cool things we are doing and the cool activities we are designing instead of leading with the learning. Leading with the “foundational” (learning targets, sound pedagogy, and results) while still emphasizing the “flashy” (innovation, experimentation, and technology) is another way we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!

Treat them Like Adults?

“To demand consistent, adult-level competence of all k-12 students is inappropriate. We have to help students become mature decision-makers and time managers.” 

Rick Wormeli

Several weeks ago, I participated in a version of Instructional Rounds at an amazing middle school in our district. In our version, twelve educators from around the district conducted a series of fifteen-minute classroom observations in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade classrooms. Many of the teachers participating as observers were K-5 teachers in the district. Our charge, as observers, was to spend the morning looking for examples of Innovation and the 4 Cs (Communication, Creativity, Collaboration, and Critical Thinking) in action.

 

via: https://goo.gl/Kmrq5W

At the end of the morning, we concluded our observations and began the debriefing process in an effort to provide feedback to the school hosting the Rounds. During this debriefing, one K-5 teacher commented that she was struck by and impressed with the way the students and teachers interacted. She said something along the lines of, “It’s amazing! The students talk and interact just like mini adults; they seem so grown up and adult-like compared to how they are at the elementary school.” As a district level educator, I have the luxury of frequently observing teaching and learning at all grade levels across the district, from Pre-K thru 8th grade, including the K-5 teacher who made this comment. I reflected upon these observations quickly and responded, “You know, in some ways, interactions between teachers and students in all great teachers’ classrooms are 'adult-like.' In fact, when we were observing in a Pre-K classroom the other day (whose teacher is widely regarded as one of the most effective teachers anywhere), we commented that the teacher spoke with these 3- and 4- year olds much like she might speak with adults--yet, in a way completely appropriate to the fact that these children were not adults at all, but, instead, 3- and 4- year old preschool children.”

Now, please do not get me wrong; taken out of context, there is a great deal more harm than good that can come about from “treating children like adults.” See Rick Wormeli’s sound advice above as but one example. No one--including me--wants our teachers to expect our students to make decisions, manage time, behave, or perform academically like mature adults; indeed, we expect great teachers to take children where they currently are and help them become all they can be as they move forward. Yet, in some ways, it seems to me that our best teachers--whether at the Pre-K or high school level--do treat their students as "mini adults" in a few critically-important ways. They do this not, of course, by demanding adult-level behavior or learning performance, but simply by not treating students in a condescending manner and, instead, speaking with them respectfully, in a way that communicates high expectations for their learning and behavior along with confidence in students’ abilities to perform to high--albeit developmentally-appropriate--levels.

When I observe masterful teachers “treating students like adults” in a positive, supportive, appropriate, and encouraging manner, I typically observe students flourishing. Five ways I see such teachers “treating students like mini adults” in this manner include the following:

• High Expectations: When we treat students like adults (in an appropriate and productive way), we have high expectations for all learners--and ourselves. We do not expect some students to not meet standards, nor do we put any ceiling on how far any individual student can learn and grow. Instead, we view our standards as the floor for all students, but the ceiling for none.
• Level of Control: When we treat students like adults (in an appropriate and productive way), we give up some of our control, and turn that over to students. Whether teaching 12th grade or 1st grade, we allow for student voice and choice and do not feel the need to be the sole arbiter of what happens, when it happens, and how it happens in our classrooms. We may observe more, but do less. When we do less, our students may do more and when we do less and students do more, everyone enjoys learning more as a result.
• Respectful Dialogue: When we treat students like adults (in an appropriate and productive way), we do not speak in condescending tones nor do we speak to them as if they were babies, even at the very youngest grade levels. Instead, we speak to them with clarity, precision, and using age-appropriate language but not selling them short in terms of what they can understand. Our tone is friendly, warm, and energetic, but it also communicates seriousness about the work that lies ahead and the importance of doing it well.
• Approach to Failure: When we treat students like adults (in an appropriate and productive way), we acknowledge that a certain amount of failure is not only inevitable and to be expected, but also a productive part of the learning process. We encourage risk taking and try to normalize errors--with the understanding that we reflect on our failures and grow from these.
• Accountability: When we treat students like adults (in an appropriate and productive way), we also hold them accountable to established group norms, work standards, and patterns of behavior. Although we know that no student in any class will meet these standards of performance 100% of the time, we remind them of our expectations in these areas and hold them (and ourselves) accountable when we fall short. 

Many years ago, when I moved from teaching 1st grade to teaching 4th grade, I was amazed at how much more “adult-like” my students were. The same thing happened when I moved from 4th to 8th grade, and once more when I moved from teaching middle school to high school. At each stage, my students were just a bit more adult-like, in terms of appearance, academic capabilities, socialization, and independence. At the same time, some things about these widely-varying young people did not change, including the overarching way I treated these students and the way they responded to my treatment of them. When I expressed a bit of nervousness about teaching 8th grade after only having taught elementary students, the principal who was interviewing me said, “Don’t worry; what made you great as a 1st grade teacher is what will make you great as an 8th grade teacher. You will do the same things but on a different level.” In time, I learned that she was absolutely correct. My 1st grade classroom was an environment in which the teacher and all students worked hard, had fun, and were nice to each other every day. That recipe stayed the same when I moved to teaching 8th grade and then high school. The depth and breadth of our learning experiences varied significantly, but the way we treated each other remained largely similar.

We would no sooner expect adult-level competence

from our students any more than we would turn over the car keys to our 3rd grader, so I am wary when I suggest we treat our kids like adults in our classrooms. At the same time, our very best teachers manage to do this appropriately in several critical ways without losing sight of what the developmentally-appropriate activities and expectations are at each step along the journey to adulthood. Treating our students with the respect and dignity we offer our adult colleagues is another way we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!

Directing Change

“One reason people resist change is because they focus on what they have to give up, instead of what they have to gain.” 

Rick Godwin

Via: goo.gl/g3ruAN

Sometime around 1976, my dad came home from work one evening and shared some news that seemed astounding, radical, and just a bit scary: his company was offering all employees the option of having their regular paychecks directly deposited into a specified bank account rather than receiving an actual paper check! He called this crazy new idea, “Direct Deposit.” Being one of the savviest people I have ever known, and realizing this change was not a scary thing, but, rather, something that would actually make his life better (albeit it in a small way), he immediately signed up. I recall him, however, telling us that the vast majority of his colleagues chose to continue with regular paper checks, rather than changing over to this new, more effective and efficient pay option. The idea of opting for this newfangled approach to getting paid seemed just a tad too risky, or simply different, apparently. My dad’s colleagues were focused more on what they would have to give up (an actual paycheck they had been receiving for many years which they fully understood) than on what they had to gain (e. g., never having to worry about depositing a paycheck again, and having their money deposited into their accounts sooner and more safely than previously).

via: goo.gl/qOLVFw

Obviously, almost every single working person reading this post today has their paycheck directly deposited into a bank account and never gives it a second thought. In fact, many readers have likely never received a traditional paycheck requiring a visit to the bank. Trust me, though: in 1976, this change initiative struck me as nothing short of radical. Many of my father’s peers--presumably older and wiser than me at the the time--obviously felt the same, too scared to opt in to a program then, that, today, we all realize would have made their lives distinctly better. You know what eventually happened, of course. Over time, the fear went away, as more and more employees learned from these “risk-taking” early adopters that direct deposit is, indeed, a change for the good, not a change to be feared.

When I accepted my first full-time job in education (teaching 1st grade), our large school district offered direct deposit, but it was not required. Having learned from my father several years earlier, I eagerly signed up for my pay (a whopping annual salary of $12,673.00) to be directly deposited into my checking account. Like many employers, our school district allowed employees to choose either form of payment for quite some time. Then, a tipping point was reached and Direct Deposit became no longer an option, but simply the way the district paid all employees. The few remaining holdouts were simply required at that point to change from receiving a traditional paycheck to a direct deposit pay stub.

When I moved to Illinois in 2009 and served as a principal at a middle school, I learned that, apparently, direct deposit--something I had long taken for granted--was not the required form of pay for employees everywhere. That February, we experienced a blizzard that caused us to cancel school for students. As principal, I still went in to catch up on work. That morning, one of our teachers knocked on the door. I let her in and asked what she was doing out in this crazy weather. It turns out that the day before had been a pay day and this teacher stopped in to pick up her paycheck. I was stunned and asked her why in the world she did not simply have her check deposited automatically into her account (privately, I was flabbergasted that there was a person alive in 2009 who made a conscious decision NOT to opt for direct deposit when it was an option). Her answer, of course, made no defensible sense; rather, she said something along the lines of, “I’ve taught her for thirty years and have always received a paycheck.” Still somewhat stunned, I dug through the mail, found her paycheck, and sent her on her way, incredulous that a change my dad embraced as an obviously smart thing to do in 1976 had still not been accepted by everyone 33 years later.

As one who often thinks about change, I have been reflecting on this quirky example. If something like direct deposit, with absolutely no downside and only benefits, had not won universal acceptance after more than 30 years, what does this say about more daunting change initiatives we may need to consider?

A few thoughts:

• In schools, when initiating change that only impacts adults (not children), perhaps it behooves us to offer choice, allowing trailblazers to opt in. If the change proves to be beneficial, more and more folks will begin taking the plunge.
• Having said that, once the change has been embraced by a significant majority of employees over time, it may make sense to eventually do away with the option altogether, and simply mandate change for all at that point.
• On the other hand, if the change involves what is best for students, and we can determine that the change will improve students’ lives in some way large or small, I am less sure that we can afford to let adults in our schools “opt in” to the change. Perhaps the change needs to be mandated for all at the outset.
• We must actively listen to resistors and be open to reasoned arguments against the change, even delaying or opting against change when appropriate. At the same time, any argument along the lines of, “But we have always done it this way” does not qualify as such.
• Change is still a tricky deal. No matter how beneficial the change, some will simply never voluntarily undergo it. Again, I worked with a highly intelligent person who opted against having her pay directly deposited...in 2009!

Recently in our district, we were debating how (not whether) to move forward with a change relating to technology. At first, I was not convinced it was a student issue as much as an adult issue, and I argued for taking a “Direct Deposit” approach, allowing anyone

via: goo.gl/7fgaa

who wanted to try the new technology to do so without requiring everyone to follow suit. However, others insisted that it would impact not only teachers, but also students, and felt we should move forward with the change for all staff. We are still debating the pros and cons of this one. On the other hand, many districts have changed over to standards based grading, assessing, and reporting. Although I realize many schools start by allowing individual teachers to implement such practices, this is one that seems so beneficial to student learning that I wonder if we should move forward as an entire school or district--once, of course, we have acquired the necessary knowledge and skills to move forward with an effective implementation? What are some change initiatives in your setting for which you would allow others to choose whether to enact? And what are some others that are coming down the pike that would be non-negotiable change initiatives? There will always be resistance with any change, of course--even complete winners like Direct Deposit. However, any such resistance some may be feeling is likely due to focusing on what they know they will have to give up rather than on potential benefits of the change.

via: goo.gl/lHVXvO

Changing from the “tried and true” to the “new and unproven” is never easy. Unfortunately, some proposed changes are not quite as obviously beneficial as changing from traditional paychecks to direct deposit pay. Still, our very finest people know that if there is a chance the change will be beneficial in some way for students, it is incumbent upon us to take a chance. Accepting change if we suspect it will benefit students--even when we are giving up something that is working well--is another way we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!

When 1 + 1 = 1...or 3

“Synergy is better than my way or your way. It's our way. Synergy is what happens when one plus one equals three, or ten, or a hundred, or even a thousand! It's the profound result when two or more respectful human beings determine to go beyond their preconceived ideas to meet a great challenge.” 

Stephen Covey

“If you're talking about how you promoted synergy in an organization, that could mean you just got everybody together for donuts twice a week.”

Erin McKean

McKean’s point notwithstanding, I do enjoy donuts. However, I like true collaborative ventures even more. Like most educators, I am a firm believer in the “4 C’s” of 21st Century teaching and learning: Communication, Creativity, Collaboration, and Critical Thinking. In fact, these are often our “look fors” when we visit classrooms in our district. We believe that anytime kids are engaged in these activities, they move from mere “meaning seekers” to “meaning makers.” Moreover, as adults, we try to model these behaviors ourselves, communicating clearly and regularly, creating new ways to do our work, thinking through real problems, and, finally...collaborating.

Looking back over my career, I can point to many examples when I engaged in true collaboration which yielded amazing results, ranging from projects in the districts I’ve served, to books I have written with co-authors, to presentations I have delivered with colleagues. In each instance, the end result was better than what I could have produced on my own. On the other hand, I have also taken part in many “collaborative” projects which were really nothing more than a series of polite compromises. Too often, in fact, what we call “collaboration”--both in our classrooms and in our professional work--falls short of what I think we truly desire from our team efforts.

In the spirit of collaboration, I invited colleagues in our district to help me think about the topic of collaboration, sending a Google Form with questions taken from a Frayer Model template (If you are not familiar with the Frayer Model concept for examining vocabulary, see this link). Using this model, I asked my colleagues for:

• Their definition of Collaboration

• Characteristics/Indicators of Collaboration

• Examples of Collaboration

• Non-Examples of Collaboration

In perusing their responses, I was drawn to a comment about “synergy,” reminding me of Stephen Covey’s thoughts in the quote above and the idea that 1 + 1 can actually equal 3. When two people experience authentic collaboration (synergy), the final product is something greater than the two of them could have created individually. Even when we are on our “A” game, my very best alone, combined with your very best alone, yields a 1 + 1 = 2 equation. But, when we engage in legitimate collaboration by providing critical feedback, brainstorming, listening actively, disagreeing respectfully, and relinquishing our natural tendency to defend our preconceived notions, amazing things can happen: my best, while interacting with your best, can actually result in a 1 + 1 = 3 situation; what we produce through this collaboration is simply greater than our best individual efforts.

Unfortunately, I have also seen “collaboration” actually produce a deleterious impact upon final results. Indeed, I have witnessed teamwork that results in 1 + 1 = 1 situations. Often, this occurs when students (or adults) are grouped together and each member simply shares their thoughts with everyone else saying polite things and agreeing. It becomes more compromise than collaboration.

Let me provide both an example and a non-example from my own recent experience, starting with a non-example. Not long ago, I was randomly placed in a group with five other district administrators from around the nation. We were allowed two hours to create a presentation which we would share the following day. We began awkwardly and it went downhill from there. The person who offered to create our slidedeck was not proficient in doing so. The person who agreed to share the presentation the following day was not an effective speaker. Each time someone said something, it was added to a slide, regardless of whether it was relevant to the topic. It appeared that many in the group were holding back. I found myself thinking that our “collaborative” effort was less than what each of us could have produced alone and that several of us could have done a vastly superior job if we had done the entire project from soup to nuts independently. This, alas, was a collaboration non-example. We were guilty of sentiments shared by a colleague on my recent survey: Generic compliance to complete the task, always being an "okay, let's add that" group. To be honest, our presentation the next day bordered on embarrassing. This group--comprised of six highly-educated and successful leaders--generated a “collaborative” product that was decidedly less than what each of us could have done alone. Although collaboration can go awry for any number of reasons, in this instance it went south due to sheer politeness: no one was willing to push back on another’s ideas.

On a more positive note, I recently experienced what I consider a solid example of true collaboration/synergy. After finishing a recent book with co-authors Jimmy Casas and Todd Whitaker, we sent it off to several educators we respect around the world, asking them

to read the draft and provide an endorsement for the book if they deemed it worthy. We mentioned a deadline of December 31, 2016 for getting us the endorsement. We were so gratified by the many responses we received and are honored that so many respected friends and colleagues took time out of their busy lives to read our book and provide words of support. Then a surprising thing happened. It was around 3:00 pm on New Year’s Eve. I was having a late lunch while vacationing on St. Simons Island, Georgia. I noticed an incoming email on my phone from one of my educational heroes and all-time favorite thinkers, writers, and human beings, Rick Wormeli. Glancing at it quickly, I saw that he asked me to call him right away. Curious, I opened it and read further. To paraphrase, Rick said that although he felt it was a wonderful book, there was a paragraph he disagreed with so strongly that he would be unable to provide an endorsement unless we discussed and revised the paragraph. Yikes; I was not expecting this. My initial thought? Pretend I had not seen this and resume my NYE activities; instead, I returned to my hotel room and called Rick. For the purposes of this post, what he found objectionable in the paragraph is subordinate in importance to how he addressed it with me: respectfully and honestly. What transpired over the next 48 hours was a back and forth with Rick about the paragraph in question. During this time, I was clearly able to understand his perspective; at the same time, I explained my own, when we differed. In the end, I agreed that the words we had written were not sending an accurate interpretation of our stance--which was, actually, predominantly in alignment with Rick’s.

At one point, I sent him a revised paragraph which I thought was vastly improved and would end the back and forth. I’ll never forget something he said in his response: after agreeing that the paragraph was much better, he said, “But I suspect you did not send this to me because you wanted a ‘yes-man’ so I am going to push back just a bit more.” He then suggested re-wording two sentences. I used approximately 80% of his wording on these two sentences and our book became stronger as a result of the entire process. In the end, I was extremely grateful for Rick’s time and effort. I appreciated him helping to make our book just a tiny bit better. I am honored that he provided a wonderful endorsement for it. More than anything, though, I am grateful for the bold, honest, and respectful collaboration. Oftentimes, we are loathe to say we disagree with something that someone we like and respect says or writes. Rick had the courage--and compassion--to do so and I appreciate it. To be completely honest, at first I was taken aback and just a tiny bit defensive. However, after listening carefully--and sharing my own respectful counterpoints--I focused on the work and making it better. Although it only impacted one short paragraph in a 64,000 word manuscript, to me, it is a clear example of “1 + 1 = 3 collaboration.”

There is a place in our lives, I suppose, for compromise (and there is definitely a place for donuts!). However, when it comes to our professional practices, we must not be afraid to move beyond compromise and work toward collaboration or, better yet, synergy. Truly collaborative ventures are rarely smooth sailing and, at times, we must honestly let people we like and respect know that we disagree with them and we think we can do better. Going beyond our preconceived ideas when collaborating with our colleagues in an effort to have a more profound impact, is another way we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!

But I Did Stay at a Holiday Inn Express...

"The performance will be our credentials."

Ken Bouldin

One of the schools in our district, Kipling Elementary, has been engaged in a semester-long book study of Sal Khan’s One World Schoolhouse. As part of the study, each week a staff member shares their thoughts about a chapter of the book through a writing posted to the school’s blog, Learning and Leading in the One World Schoolhouse. Recently, I contributed to the school’s book study with my reflections on a chapter of the book titled, “The Future of Credentials.”

In this very short chapter, Kahn suggests we are mixing three different ideas together when we speak of “education.” The first is the idea of teaching and learning. The second aspect is socialization. The third idea is that of credentialing--giving a piece of paper to someone that proves to the world that they know what they know. Khan maintains that these three ideas get muddled together because they are all performed by the same institutions. He makes the case for separating the role of ”credentialing,” letting people gain credentials through alternative sources.

Although short, I found this chapter both powerful and validating. Currently, traditional credentials for students are the diplomas they receive at various stages along their academic journeys. At the college level, these “credentials” are time consuming and expensive. Moreover, they are a bit vague in terms of describing what, exactly, the owner of the diploma actually knows and is able to do. What is truly important is not the diploma itself, but what the owner of the diploma can do as a result. I am reminded of the old Holiday Inn Express ad campaign in which various people perform remarkably in any number of roles with their only “qualification” being that they had stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before. Here is but one example from this ad campaign:

How is this humorous commercial advertisement applicable to credentials? Well, the fact that we possess a diploma--or that we have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express--is, ultimately, unimportant. What truly matters is whether we can perform the required skills necessary to succeed. Personally, I have actually earned the “credential” of staying at a Holiday Inn express. However, you certainly would not want me performing surgery on you any time soon. As the commercials suggest, however, the reverse may also be true. If one can perform the skills, the credential itself (a diploma) is subordinate in importance--possibly even irrelevant--and could actually come from an alternative source of credentialing rather than the typical source (a school).

Traditional credentials also pose equity challenges for students from underrepresented communities. To make the process more affordable, fair, and less time consuming, what if we, instead, designed specific credential opportunities for a wide variety of skills and allowed anyone to attempt to earn these credentials anytime and anywhere as a way to better themselves?

Like most things in education, what applies to students also applies to us, as educators. What if--instead of grad school--we were allowed to advance our pay level and degree level by proving we had acquired new knowledge and skills, instead of putting in the required seat time and credit hours to earn another diploma? Speaking only for myself and reflecting on my master's, specialist's, and doctoral degrees, I think such learning might have been more efficient, cost effective, and relevant than most of the traditional graduate-level education courses I endured.

I take pride in so much of what we have done and continue to do throughout our own amazing school district in Deerfield, Illinois. Among these many accomplishments is our own small initial foray into credentialing through our Deerfield University professional learning platform. This platform allows staff members to earn badges and incentive points on a voluntary basis by learning about a topic, doing something with their learning, and submitting evidence of their application of learning. It would be interesting to offer credentialing opportunities to our students as well. In fact, I wonder what credentials we would offer at various grade levels and subject areas? What would be the Top 5 credentials you would offer students the opportunity to earn if you teach 4th grade? Music? Art? PE? Calculus? Spanish? Maybe it would be fun to determine the “critical 5” for each area, the essential knowledge and skills that you would expect any student in the grade/course to earn along with another 5 that would be “growth” credentials, based on individual interest or exceptional aptitude in a certain area.

Khan labels this chapter, “The Future of Credentials,” but it seems as if too often in our noble profession we speak about “The future of…” when we need to shift our mindset and realize the future can be now. Identifying the key knowledge and skills we want our students and each other to possess, determining methods for measuring mastery of this, and then awarding a credential certifying such mastery are ways we can personalize learning for all today. They are also ways we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!

Just One Thing

“Your students won’t always remember what you've taught them, but they’ll always remember how you've treated them.”

Unknown

Earlier this week, I was commiserating with a principal friend about our respective writing projects. Having just submitted my newest book to the publisher, I lamented that I was so deep into it that I could no longer discern if it was even any good. My colleague expressed a similar sentiment and then suggested something that gave me pause. In essence, he suggested that if we in education simply did just "one thing," we would have it all solved. This "one thing" reference reminded me of a key moment in the film City Slickers. Check out this clip:

My colleague's "one thing"? If we all followed the golden rule of treating others the way we want to be treated, that would take care of pretty much all the challenges we face in education and we would not need any books at all. Oversimplified stance? Perhaps. But, let’s consider. 

Four Seasons is noted for its fanatical adherence to their philosophy of doing everything in their power to provide first class treatment to their guests--and each other. In fact, under the “How We Behave” umbrella of their Service Culture framework, they commit to the following: “We demonstrate our beliefs most meaningfully in the way we treat each other and by the example we set for one another. In all our interactions with our guests, customers, business associates, and colleagues, we seek to deal with others as we would have them deal with us.” Presumably, most everyone reading this post would concur with this ancient philosophy, but how often do our actions truly align with our beliefs when it comes to this “one thing”? Recently, I was treated horribly by someone I know. I recall thinking, “I can’t imagine how this person could possibly have treated me like this. I would never want to treat someone like this.” A few days later, I had the conversation with my colleague and started to reflect on my own treatment of others. Upon reflection, although I am still confident I would never have done what was done to me, I was equally confident that I do not always treat everyone with whom I come in contact precisely the way I would want to be treated. But what if I did? And what if we all did--especially in our schools?

In what ways would our schools be different if every educator in every school dealt with every student, every colleague, and every parent as we would have them deal with us? For instance, if that “one thing” was the standard for treating others, how would we respond when:

• A student misbehaves consistently?

• A colleague asks us to cover their class?

• A working parent asks if they could meet for a conference before or after “normal” working hours?

• A student fails to turn in an assignment?

• A student, parent, or colleague lashes out at us angrily about something?

• A student misses two weeks of school for being ill?

• A colleague falls short of our expectations in some area?

If, in each of these instances, we responded according to this “one thing,” I suspect our schools would be better places in which to teach, learn, and lead. If someone disappoints us--be that person a student, parent, or colleague--and we respond with respect, empathy, and honesty, chances are we are responding in a way we would want that person to deal with us. Here’s the kicker, though--(well, three actually):

1. It Starts with Me: First, like all good ideas for making our world a better place, it starts with me (or, in your case, you). If we are not modeling this behavior ourselves, it is unlikely to spread and become embedded in the culture of the organization. 
2. Easier Said than Done: Second, this sounds a whole lot easier in theory than it actually is in practice. I mean, there are some really annoying things occurring in our schools each day! Not only that, but at times people with whom we interact disappoint us, treat us poorly, and even do things that hurt us. When these things happen, it is never fun and often tempting to respond in kind. When thusly tempted, it behooves us to keep in mind the following powerful axiom: “We are defined by our actions toward others, not others’ actions toward us.” 
3. We are All Different: Third, I have learned that not everyone wants to be treated the way I want to be treated. Although there are certainly differences among people in how they prefer to be treated, in our schools I suspect there are some ways of dealing with others that work for nearly everyone. Behaving toward others with dignity, respect, patience, calmness, and empathy while actively listening and seeking to honestly know the other person are behaviors that will sit well with virtually all students, parents, and colleagues in our schools. In fact, the more we get to know our kids, parents, and colleagues, the more equipped we are to twist the Golden Rule just a bit, moving from treating others as we would want to be treated to treating others as they would want to be treated.

We may never get the entire school community consistently behaving to the Four Seasons standard of dealing with others, but the more often each of us models this “one thing,” the more likely it is we will get others to follow suit. Eventually, if we stay the course, it may even become embedded into the culture as simply, “The way we do things around here.” This “one thing” may not be the answer to every challenge facing those of us serving in schools, but I honestly suspect it would eliminate many of the negative incidents that occur therein. Moreover, intentionally and consistently seeking to deal with others as we would have them deal with us is another way we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!

Do Your Best. Then, Do Better.

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” 

Maya Angelou

Here are three true statements (that some may find impossible to believe) about the first principal I ever worked for as a teacher:

• She smoked cigarettes in her office occasionally.
• She sometimes paddled children with a wooden paddle when they misbehaved.
• She was an outstanding principal who I liked and respected a great deal during the five years I worked with her. To this day, I still consider her a friend and mentor.

At the time, I was teaching first grade in a suburban area just outside Atlanta, Georgia. Admittedly, I am very old--as my PLN friends are quick to point out--but this was not the Stone Age; it was the 1980s. And my principal smoked in school and paddled kids. And I thought she was awesome. In considering these three points from my first year of teaching, some may find the fact she smoked in the principal's office the most incredible. Others may find using a wooden paddle to punish kids even more incomprehensible.

However, I would not be surprised if some find the fact that I actually liked and respected the principal--one who smoked and paddled children--the most surprising of all. To those of you, I promise, you would have liked and respected her, too, if you worked for her during that era. She was a student-centered leader who truly cared about every single child in the school of over 1000 K-5 students. She cared about every staff member, too. In fact, thanks in large part to her leadership, we were a close-knit staff who worked hard together when at school and enjoyed each other’s company outside of school.

How can I speak so highly of a school leader who smoked in her office and occasionally paddled children who misbehaved? At the time, such behaviors were completely acceptable parts of the school and district culture--and were equally acceptable throughout that part of the country. To use Angelou’s quote, you might say she was doing the best she knew at the time. However, because she was a lifelong learner who was open minded and welcomed change, when she knew better, she did better. In my final year of teaching there, she had stopped smoking and put a halt to corporal punishment, even though both were still legal (and widely practiced at neighboring schools) at that time. So, what are the implications of my first year teaching experiences from decades ago for those of us practicing as teachers and school leaders in 2016?

First, it is important to realize that best practices evolve over time. What we think is best practice right now may well be looked at with scorn and horror many years hence. Still, we must move forward, doing the very best we can today, armed with the very best knowledge we have available to us; at the same time, we should constantly examine and reflect upon what it is we consider best practice today and always be open to changing when we find a better way. We simply cannot continue to do things if the only reason we have for doing them is the fact that we have always done them. In my first year of teaching, the principal paddled children--and the vast majority of the staff supported and even encouraged this behavior--simply because it had always been done. There simply was no other defensible reason for doing this. Thankfully, we are no longer using corporal punishment in most schools across the country. Fortunately, smoking is no longer allowed in schools either. Believe it or not, however, in every school I visited this year--including those in my own district--staff still did things simply because they have always done those things. Like my first principal, the people doing these things are neither bad people nor lazy professionals. In fact, many are passionate individuals dedicated to their kids, colleagues, and schools. Yet some traditions continue in schools today that serve no real learning purpose. When we notice this happening, we should confront it, discussing it openly among all affected parties. Ultimately, if we cannot support our current practice or policy in ways other than, “Well, we’ve always done it that way,” we should seriously reconsider such practices or policies.

In full disclosure, my principal that year was not the only educator in the building doing stupid things. To be completely honest, I suspect that I was right up there atop the leaderboard in terms of educators doing stupid things. In fact, I am still writing apology notes to the children in my classroom during that era. If memory serves, I may have even shared a cigarette or two with my principal in her office during the year! It is of some comfort, I suppose, to know that if, today, we were to poll every one of my colleagues working in the school that year, I suspect each would say the same thing: as much as they cared about their kids and their profession, in hindsight, they engaged in some practices then that seem rather ludicrous today.

So what lessons can we learn from the somewhat shocking behaviors that occurred many years ago which seemed perfectly normal at the time? And, what lessons can we learn from much more recent--if less extreme--practices that we no longer consider best practice? My answer is that we must be extremely vigilant about monitoring all we do, measuring whether it is producing the desired results, and implementing new and better ideas whenever we discover them. Realizing that times change and our practices can and should change with them is important. The vast majority of us are doing the very best we know how each and every day. Still, we must be open to the possibility that what we are doing today as “best practice” may not be the best we can do tomorrow. Doing our very best on a daily basis--and then doing even better when we know better--is another way we Teach, Learn, and Lead with Passion!