Early this week, I found myself having conversations with various colleagues about the direction of our district. During the dialog, I brought up several thoughts that I addressed in an earlier post titled “The Value of a Shared Vision”, with the key point being that “If there is one consistent lesson that emerges from studies of the change process, it is that no one leader has all the energy and expertise to reform...a district, improve a school, or meet the needs of students in the classroom each day” (DuFour & Fullan, 2013, p. 24). In other words, in order to be effective, leaders of a school must be sure to share a clear vision for the district and then nurture and support the dispositional leadership of the early adopters.
Those who are the early adopters of a vision could be called the first followers and it is these folks that play a key role in building a culture that is aligned to the vision. One of my favorite TedTalks to share is Derek Sivers “How to Start a Movement”. It is a short and hilarious observation of the power of nurturing the first followers as equals. In the video, Sivers astutely points out that “new followers emulate the follower, not the leader”. If school leaders (positional leadership) are to be effective, they must become more like stewards of the school (See Entitlement:Stewardship as Oil:Water) whose role is to develop the strengths of school staff (dispositional leadership). It also means a safe environment must be created in order to nurture a culture that promotes always doing the right thing over always doing things right.
This excerpt from Simon Sinek’s book “ Leaders Eat Last” is a great example of the importance of doing the right thing over doing things right.
“KH209, I need to descend immediately. I can’t maintain altitude,” was the abrupt call from the pilot. (due to smoke filling the plane)
But there was a problem. There was another flight 2,000 feet directly below the troubled aircraft. The FAA rules are simple enough: no two aircraft flying en route may pass each other any closer than 1,000 feet, above or below, or five miles around each other.
The air traffic controller replied to the pilot’s request to descend immediately, “KH209, turn fifteen degrees right and descent”.
This was a very experienced air traffic controller sitting at the console that day. He was fully aware of all the aircraft in the area. What’s more, he was very aware of all the rules and restrictions. He radioed the pilot of the other aircraft and spoke in very clear, plain English. “AG1446, there is an airplane flying above you. He has declared an emergency. He is going to descend through your altitude at approximately two miles off your right front. He needs to descend immediately.”
This same message would be repeated again as the troubled vessel passed through the airspace of another three aircraft as it made its way down….126 souls were saved because one very experienced air traffic controller decided to break the rules (Sinek, 2014, pp. 72-73).
The air traffic controller did not tell the pilot, “Sorry, but you can’t descend due to FAA regulations”. He also did not stop what he was doing and waste precious minutes to call a supervisor in order to get permission for the plane to descend. Instead, he assessed or diagnosed the situation, used his expertise to decide what to do, and had the confidence that he would be supported in his decision to do the right thing by ordering the plane to descend over doing things right by following FAA regulations. 126 precious lives were saved that day which, ironically, is around the same number of students a teacher might work with on a daily basis when teaching five classes of 25 each day.
I don’t feel as if I am being overly dramatic when comparing the importance of the decision making process for 126 passengers on a smoke filled plane and an equal number of students in a classroom. Clearly, there is not an immediate danger to the students versus those of the passengers, but there is a concern in the long term if we, as educators, are not knowledgeable of our trade and don't follow best practices (the air traffic controller was an expert), are not able to be diagnostic when observing or speaking with students (the controller immediately identified and addressed the problem), and don’t feel we have permission or can be trusted to focus on what a student needs over what a student needs to do (Be trusted to obey the rules and trusted to know when to break them). Fortunately, there are teachers who are able to meet all three of these criteria, but to have all three is not always common. However, it is the last criteria combined with the first follower concept that has been on my mind this week and what I would like folks to consider.
In my mind, a healthy school culture is not created by one individual, but is instead built with the support of first followers acting as catalysts. These first followers understand the vision of the school and help to nurture an environment of trust that gives all educators permission to do the right thing over doing what is portrayed to be right. I say what is “portrayed to be right” as a reference to a focus on grades, test scores, or covering the curriculum and “doing the right thing” as a reference to meeting kids where they are and nurturing them from that point. Getting things “right” (high test scores) will be a natural byproduct of “doing the right thing”. A school culture in which all educators (teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists, etc.) focus on developing our young people’s ability to learn (Nurture the Roots) more than the scores they produce is why we went into education, what our parents want, and how are kids need to learn.
References
DuFour, R. & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Systemic PLCs at work.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Sinek, Simon (2014). Leaders Eat Last. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment