Category Archives: #Book2

“…permeate every pore of the school”

Screen Shot 2016-06-26 at 7.49.31 PM

After writing a book, I am finding myself reading the books of others and wishing I would have caught some of their quotes to add to mine, to strengthen my argument. In a really great book by Chris Lehmann and Zac Chase, titled “Building School 2.0: How to Create the Schools We Need“, this quote on “vision” really resonated:

When you have a vision for what a school can be, it has to permeate every pore of the school. Every process, every interaction, every system needs to be held to that process. And although there are pieces of the school that may be only tangential to the mission, it is important to go through the process of examining how the core vision of the school affects each part of the school.

This quote reminded me of a conversation that I was having the other day about “missions and visions” in schools.  How often do you see that the school district has one “mission”, with each school having their own vision, and even teams such as the “curriculum department”, “tech team”, etc., having a unique “vision” for the work that they do?  If we are to have so many separate visions, it is not only not probable that it will “permeate every pore of the school”; it is impossible.

In “The Innovator’s Mindset”, I talk about how this “visioning” process was so important in bringing our community together:

In 2011, the leaders at Parkland School Division, a district of twenty-two schools located west of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, recognized the need for a shift in their thinking. Part of that shift began with involving the entire community in the process of developing a new vision and mission for learning. In addition to staff and students, the leaders consulted with parents and business leaders to not only engage them in the process but also empower them. Not everyone could attend the meetings, of course. With a school community of 10,000 students, it is hard to bring everyone together face-to-face, but technology ensured that everyone had the opportunity to share their thoughts. Individuals and groups offered input on what they saw  as necessary for students—both for the present and for their future. Words like creativity, innovation, and exploration came up repeatedly; the word compliance did not.

Empowerment does not happen without ownership. As we adopted one “vision” for all, this did not mean that everyone did the same thing. It meant that there were different pathways to get to the same ultimate vision, but it also meant that the conversations were different.  Instead of asking, “What should our vision be?”, schools and departments would ask, “What does this vision mean to us and how do we make it come to life?”  For this vision to “permeate every pore of the school”, we needed to not only create, but we needed to also break it down, struggle with it, challenge ideas, and ultimately bring it to life while constantly revisiting it, and think about it terms of every person of our organization.  This helps people to see that no matter where they are, their contributions are serving the purpose of the entire organization, not just in the areas that they directly work.

Only then will you see this vision embodied in all places, not just some places.

Accepting the Default?

In the book, “Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World ” by Adam Grant, he shares a really interesting story about people who went with Internet Explorer on their computers at work, versus those using Chrome and Firefox:

Why are the Firefox and Chrome users more committed and better performers on every metric?

The obvious answer was that they’re more tech savvy, so I asked Housman if he could explore that. The employees had all taken a computer proficiency test, which assessed their knowledge of keyboard shortcuts, software programs, and hardware, as well as a timed test of their typing speed. But the Firefox and Chrome group didn’t prove to have significantly more computer expertise, and they weren’t faster or more accurate typists. Even after accounting for those scores, the browser effect persisted. Technical knowledge and skill weren’t the source of their advantage.

What made the difference was how they obtained the browser. If you own a PC, Internet Explorer is built into Windows. If you’re a Mac user, your computer came preinstalled with Safari. Almost two thirds of the customer service agents used the default browser, never questioning whether a better one was available.

To get Firefox or Chrome, you have to demonstrate some resourcefulness and download a different browser. Instead of accepting the default, you take a bit of initiative to seek out an option that might be better. And that act of initiative, however tiny, is a window into what you do at work.

…We live in an Internet Explorer world. Just as almost two thirds of the customer service reps used the default browser on their computers, many of us accept the defaults in our own lives. (Grant, 2016)

Such a simple thing, but do we actually encourage kids to take that “initiative” and deter others that already do?  Do we do the same things to teachers?

Think of this simple little thing…have you ever been part of a school or known of a teacher that was actually told NOT to download a browser other than Internet Explorer on a computer because it doesn’t fit into the guidelines of what is “allowed”?  Such a little thing, but if you look past the browser, did we actually deter those that were willing to push further to do something better for themselves and those kids?

Culture is not just the “big things”, but it becomes all of the little things added up.  It is great to promote initiative, but deterring it is simply unacceptable.

Screen Shot 2016-05-26 at 6.56.39 PM