DaveShearon

Policy Recommendations for Improving Teaching

This post is actually a response to John Merrow's Huffington Post column on value-added.  Recommended - it's quite good!

First, I appreciate Mr. Merrow going to the source.  I've known and worked with Bill for years and his work inspired my passion for education, leading ultimately to serving on the school board here in Nashville.  His work is solid but the policy recommendations drawn from it are often wrong.  Part of that is Tennessee's fault - we've had almost 20 years to learn how to help teachers add more value, and we've failed because we spent most of those 20 years fighting the data rather than working with it. Based on years of working with that data from a policy perspective and my work in positive psychology, here are my policy recommendations:

1.  Recruit great teacher candidates.  TFA has found that high grades and test scores from top colleges are not enough.  We need better data on the qualities of character and outlook that make for great teachers, and how to select for them (I suspect there will be multiple patterns), but, in the meantime, look to resilience - especially optimism and a growth mindset - plus a passion for teaching.

2.  Help teachers develop personally to become more resilient, more growth-minded, better at relationships, more focused on strengths - and show them proven ways to help develop these same qualities in students while teaching academic content.  The Army is doing this for sergeants to help soldiers; why can't we do it for teachers? http://csf.army.mil/news.html  This book I co-authored can help: http://www.smartstrengths.com/

3.  Focus teacher professional development on teacher-led instructional improvement through "Lesson Study" or something very similar.  http://www.shearonforschools.com/books_lesson_study.htm

4.  Develop better leaders.  Top young teachers want and deserve good leadership, and they want open, meaningful pathways to leadership.  A great principal can help inspire and guide young teachers toward excellence and high value-add; a poor one runs great candidates out of the teaching profession. Many unnecessary obstacles have been placed in the path to leadership by legislators and administrators in the name of "improving leadership" - get rid of those that don't have solid, empirical evidence that they actually make better leaders (when in doubt, cut it out) and focus on leadership opportunities and mentorship to build on the base provided by the professional development and teacher-led instructional improvement cited above.

For more on the thinking behind these recommendations, see the chapter on "Positive Education" in Marty Seligman's new book <i>Flourish</i> or the white paper available here: http://www.flourishingschools.org/Positive_Education_FSWhitePaper.pdf

Are you leading for better?

That's the title of my monthly post over at Positive Psychology News Daily.  Are you?  How about how you are leading your own life?

It's an honor, sir, ma'am!

"Army Will Train Soldiers to Cope with Mental Stress" is the head on a story in the New York Times about resiliency training for lawyers that I helped deliver last week in Pennsylvania.  It was, truly, an honor.  These men and women are impressive in so many ways.  Although the article talks about qualms around touchy-feely, I didn't see a lot of evidence of that during the week.  Of course, there's nothing really touchy-feely about testing your thinking for common Thinking Traps!  And, yes, teaching a young private may prove a bit different from teaching more experienced and mature sergeants.  But, if anyone can figure out how to do it, it's these folks.

I witnessed a really high level of commitment all week.  These sergeants have worked hard to become capable, professional leaders, and they were willing to dive in and learn new skills that might help them better help soldiers and their families to survive and thrive. 

The Army does develop leaders; but these leader also seemed committed to developing themselves.

On pursuing scary goals

Mark Twain is absolutely one of my favorites for quotes.  His insights are always so penetrating and so penetratingly worded.  Here's one:

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great."

Positive psychology research has pretty clearly established that a primary indicator and component of "the good life" is the pursuit of personally meaningful, values-aligned, intrinsic goals.  For example, Susan Segerstrom in Breaking Murphy's Law , says, "The first rule of doing optimism is pursuing goals." (p. 188.)  This just makes sense.  It is clearly better to get up in the morning with a feeling and a plan for moving toward something you value. 

For someone who is really feeling down and not experiencing much happiness, the first goal may simply be to become happier.  This is very doable.  We can become happier by learning the skills of resilience, increasing one's positivity ratio, learning and using our strengths, and creating more, better, and stronger relationships.  Positive psychology has mapped out complementary approaches that work across these areas.

Once things get better, however, it is likely we are going to feel pulled toward a future that aligns with our values.  Most will formulate a purpose that connects with something bigger or greater.  And, it's at that moment that Mark Twain's comment comes into play.  At that point, it is important to find people who support us in our efforts, and to ask for the support of the important persons in our lives.  In turn, perhaps we need to consider whether we routinely help people become great, or hold them back from their ambitions.

Metro Nashville Public Schools Need Leadership, Not Implementation

Nashville is searching for a new schools superintendent.  By some measures, our last search was a success.  The candidate selected, Pedro Garcia, lasted almost seven years.  Of course, he also created a "climate of fear" and presided over six straight years when Nashville lost ground to the state average in helping students learn.  So, what have the leaders who will choose our next superintendent taken from this experience?

The meme from the Mayor's office and the business community seems to be,  "Let's get an implementor."  Here is one story that evidences this, but there are others.  A Nashville Today (not online) interview with former Mayor Bill Purcell quoted him to the effect that we needed someone who knows how to turn around an urban school system.  No one has successfully accomplished that task, but maybe there is someone who knows how.  How would the School Board know, however, that one candidtate knew? 

The meme out of the School Board seems to be, "a good communicator who listens, builds morale and maintains strong community relations."  All the things that Dr. Garcia wasn't.  That's fairly typical in these situations.  Our last search was to replace a superintendent who had been a career-long MNPS educator and who was not seen as strong on instructional issues -- his role had been facilities and helping settle the 4-decade desegregation suit.  So, of course, the meme was for an outsider with strong instructional credentials who would come in and whip the system into place.  I was on the Board when that search started and I pushed for us not to go looking for "an answer person."  No Board member or Chamber representative would publicly speak against that, but it was not the underlying tenor of leadership thinking.  We wanted a "change agent."

Memes make a difference.  They are the real drivers of decisions in situations like this, not formal statements of "what we are looking for."  Here we have interesting cross-currents between the "implementor" and the "people person" meme.  I hope that the "people person" meme wins out.  There's virtually no evidence nationally that any program, be it "small learning communities" or whatever the next fad will be, can reliably improve teaching and learning in urban systems if it is just "implemented" properly.  On the other hand, there's lots of evidence that good relationships between teachers and principals, teachers and teachers, teachers and students, and teachers and parents create engagement for students and gains in learning.  Chris Peterson of the University of Michigan and one of my professors in the MAPP program sums up the findings of positive psychology by saying, "Other people matter."

I was at an event this weekend where I got to visit with the parents of young adults who were in my older son's class in school.  Several of these, like Tyler, are now teaching.  One parent summed up the experience of his and a number of others he'd talked to over recent years as, "I love my kids, like my parents, can't stand the administration."  He talked about the number of young, idealistic, energetic students he had seen go into teaching in recent years, then leave in disillusionment due to the leadership, or lack thereof, in their schools.  Or, as another parent quoted his daughter's principal, "If you are looking for me to encourage you, you came to the wrong school."  Wow!

So, what should the School Board do?

• Hold to the "people person" idea, but don't hold your breath waiting to find her or him.  Much of the dynamic in the leadership track that produces candidates for urban systems tends to create "program people" with jaded views of teachers and even the possibility of change.  (One of the findings of a big survey done of our system by a group that conducts such studies around the country was that teachers and top administrators were equally pessimistic about the chances for improvement.)
• Change the system to support the people in it, specifically:
  • Support teacher-led instructional improvement.  The format does not have to be lesson study as I pushed it when I was on the Board, but it had better include letting teachers, working together in small groups, select areas for improvement efforts, research, design, implement, and evaluate those efforts, report the results, then turn around and do it again.  Call it "small learning communities" or "critical friends circles" or "action research", but make sure it has those characteristics.
  • Give back the teacher in-service days the last administration took away.  The idea that what we really needed was more time for teachers in front of students doing what they have always done was insane.  It was a reflection of the command and control, fear-based approach of the last administration.  The Board should not have agreed to it and you should take the lead now in creating time in the school year for teachers to work on deep, fundamental instructional improvement.  Don't wait for MNEA to demand it in negotiations.  Do it now, on your own, as a sign of your faith in teachers and a commitment to a new way of going forward together.
  • Create a system of regular surveys of culture and climate in MNPS generally and in individual schools.  This was a task the Board assigned the last administration.  They picked a vendor that delivered a useless product and then reneged on the balance of the agreement claiming lack of funds.  The Board let it happen.  Now, we find that instead of an $800,000 contract, we got a useful survey for $30,000.  Get a permanent, annual system in place to sample to feelings and beliefs of teachers, students, and parents.  I still recommend looking into this option, but don't take no for an answer this time.  Get a system that will produce data that will help you manage the leadership of this system.  There is no excuse for not fixing this glaring lack that allowed a culture of fear and low expectations to prevail under the last administration.

Selecting the next superintendent of schools is clearly the biggest challenge and most significant responsibility this Board will face.  Looking around the country, we see NO large, urban school systems that are doing well, so there's very little reason to think we are going to find a lot of quality candidates that can lead a people-first program.  But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to think we will find a candidate who has a programmatic answer for teaching and learning.  Run from those who think they do.  Find your people person who believes in the strengths and character of our teachers, our students, our parents and our community.  Someone who will draw out and build on the best qualities and strongest aspects of who we are.  That is our only path forward.  Good luck!

PsyCap - An Integrative Approach and a New Tool

My book note on Psychological Capital by Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio is up over at Positive Psychology Daily News.

Looking good by being negative (and hurting your team)

Although positive psychology has gotten a lot of favorable press, there have also been a number of stories that, at the end, turn critical.  Richard Handler's "20 Weeks to Happiness" (http://tinyurl.com/yxf98v) is one example.  I've seen others, but can't put my cursor on them right now; perhaps you can.  I've often felt that that turn to negativity near the end of some pieces on positive psychology represented two things:  (1) a feeling that it's too hard to be positive and (2) an attempt to look smart by being negatively critical.  Monday's Wall Street Journal gave me some evidence for the latter point.  Jared Sandberg's "Cubicle Culture" column was entitled, "Some Managers Make It Easy on Themselves with a Ready 'No'".  After quoting several sources who talked about their experience with negative, nitpicking, no-saying managers (anyone remember Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativity?), there's this paragraph:

Naysayers tend to deflate motivation and bring productivity to a grinding halt -- just to salve their needy egos. "Negative evaluation is a tactic people use when they're intellectually insecure," says Teresa Amabile, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. More than 20 years ago, Prof. Amabile conducted a study in which she discovered that criticism sounds smarter than praise -- that people believe lashing critics are smarter than the approvers.  

When people evaluated edited excerpts from negative and positive book reviews, she found that negative reviewers also were seen as more expert and competent "even when the content of the positive review was independently judged as being of higher quality and greater forcefulness."

There's lots of evidence about how positivity boosts productivity.  Jane Dutton, David Cooperrider, Bob Quinn, and Amy Wirzesniewski come to mind.  But it's easier to be negative, and may make others view you as smarter to boot!

FISH!

Just finished FISH! by  Stephen C. Lunding, Harry Paul, and John Christensen (see sidebar).  One of my staff had read it and wanted our office to work with it.  Good book.  Written as a story and presented in a simple manner, but the principles fit with the findings of the Positive Organizational Studies folks at Michigan.  Those principles are:

*Choose your attitude.

*Play.

*Make their day.

*Be present.

Not bad.  Although it may sound simplistic, a conscious focus on positives, improvement, enjoyment, and high-quality connections with co-workers and customers can not only make work more enjoyable AND more productive, it can actually make folks healthier.  For a more scholarly and more in depth look at some of the same issues, see Energize Your Workplace: How to Create and Sustain High Quality Connections at Work by Jane Dutton

Building the Bridge as You Walk on It

I'm almost finished with Building the Bridge as You Walk on It by Robert Quinn.  The subtitle is "A Guide to Leading Change."  However, if you think you're not interested, think again.  Quinn's approach and thinking are so different that executives come up after his programs and say, "I only wish I'd learned this when my children were young!"  And, Dr. Quinn finds his insights to be applicable to parenting, also.  He shares, with their permission, an experience with both his son and his daughter in the book, and what they wrote about those experiences.  The experience with his daughter came as they dealt with a breakup with a boyfriend, and from it she found purpose in her life, increased peace, poise, and success at work and in relationships! 

Also, if you'd like to know why the superintendent of almost any major school system in this country is NOT a "change agent", read the story of the executive that attended one of Dr. Quinn's week-long workshops that is in Chapter Nine on "Authentic Engagement."  (The story of the Mom with a daughter who didn't like homework that opens that chapter is powerful, also!)

Caring for the Leader

Does that title strike you as strange?  I suspect it does.  But leadership is tough, and yet most of us give little thought to the care and feeding of leaders.  They have to do it themselves, and, what's more, they virtually never get even a suggestion that they need to do that, much less guidance in how.  A VC has a great post on this.  And I suspect it is appropriate to school principals.  I know it would be to superintendents.

But my advice to founders and CEOs who find that they have the weight of the company on their shoulders is to get some help.

And there are two sources of help I recommend.

The first is inside the company.  A CEO/founder must surround themselves with people who they like, trust, and can lower their guard with.  The best leaders have a "kitchen cabinet" of people they can be completely honest with and who they rely on for advice, counsel, and support. It is tricky to provide that back to the same people who are providing it to you, but you must try to make it happen.

The second is outside the company.  I encourage every CEO/founder I work with to find someone that they can meet with at least once a week to talk to about their hopes, dreams, challenges, anxieties, and fears.  I don't normally suggest a shrink, but a coach or a mentor who has no other agenda than to be your counsel and friend is critical.  Most of the successful leaders I know has someone like this, at least for part of their stint on the job.

The bottom line is being a founder/CEO is a really hard job.  It's even harder if you've never done it before. If you find yourself being slowed down by the weight of the company on your shoulders, find some people you can trust and be totally honest with to help you carry the load.

Think about it.  School principals really report to a "board".  No one person at the central office is their direct superior, responsible for building them up and helping them succeed.  Rather, you've got a ton of folks empowered to meddle in their day-to-day activities, but with virtually no accountability for results.

And what about supers?  They usually didn't set out to be CEO's and founders.  They just moved up.  And, along the way, the only time they were the "leader", they were principals -- and not supported.  Then they get to the top, and they think being the "big leader" is going to make it better.  And, instead, they find everybody dumping problems in their laps and an organization that, as noted, fails to support the critical leaders on which supers depend:  principals.  But, that's the way they were treated.  That's the way all school systems are structured.  How in the world are supers going to see the need to radically realign the roles of central office administrators vis-a-vis principals?  As one administrator here in Nashville was heard to say, "I came to the central office because I like to tell people what to do!"

Finally, I should point out that school boards have to be about the worst boards around to work for!  Generally, the members have little or no management experience.  Most have never been on any board with a similar public profile and responsibility.  The political nature attracts issue-oriented folks and bomb-throwers.  Typically they have no clue how to evaluate the system's performance overall, much less any way to judge whether it's headed in the right direction.  And, they want to "do something" -- that's why they ran for the post!  But, "doing something" from the board level is quite often a REALLY bad idea, and the super often knows this, even if he or she cannot articulate why in a way that will work with board members.  Great.  What a position.  And I campaigned for some of these jobs!  What was I thinking?